McGee, Tim and Patricia Ericsson. "The Politics of the Program: MS Word as the Invisible Grammarian." Computers in the Composition Classroom. Eds. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, and Elixabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2008: 308-325. Print.
Link to the article.
In this article, the author's reinforce the argument self makes about not "paying attention." They argue that the technology that fades into the background is the most dangerous. They take the argument for critical usage to the next step by focusing on a specific software program that has faded into the background (even still today). They analyze the background and implications of Microsoft Word's Grammar Check. Ultimately, the creation of Grammar Check was based on the field of computational linguistics, which has a different field focus than composition and rhetoric (the field that teaches most writing courses). Essentially, GC relies on a system that is not only not complete accurate, but sets up a binary system right vs. wrong. For the seasoned writer, the author's say this is not a big deal; however, they suggest that this can be detrimental to the student writer. In addition, the author's tie this system to the issue of Standard English. The right or wrong implications of the checker suggest right or wrong versions of language, which is tied back to the issues of power and the interface discussed in Selfe & Selfe.
This article comes at an interesting time because I just read "New Spaces and Old Places: An Analysis of Writing Assessment Software" by Vojak, et al. about a week ago. The article was published this year, and they found that many of the software programs are still basing their analysis and feedback on things like style, and whether or not keywords are present in the student writing. The issue of current traditional rhetoric present in the tools we use (whether it be textbooks or software) is still ever present. Blogger even has a spell check. I have red dots under words it doesn't recognize.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Brain Rules Chapter 5 Notes
This week I played around with Prezi. I had heard of this program before (and seen it in action), but haven't had the opportunity to use it at all yet. I love it. I can see it as a very useful tool for making presentations individually and as a group (I noticed that you can group edit). I think it would be useful to use as a class as well. You could do something like give each group an area to play around in and create kind of a class presentation. You can add videos, files, images, pre-made diagrams, shapes, etc. Overall, I like it because it's not linear-for the times that you need to return to a point or when a linear presentation is not conducive to the idea you want to present. Right now, I wish had more time to play with it. Maybe for our final assignment...
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Reviewing NCTE Position Statement
The NCTE Position Statement on composing with non-print media in fact looks like it's been informed by many of the readings so far this semester. The statement itself focuses on the teaching of teachers (something we've seen suggested in the SoTL readings as well as Selfe's readings), the idea that we should be researching and being critical about the use of non-print media (Hawisher and Selfe; Selfe and Selfe), and issues of access (Selfe & Selfe, ECAR). The statement promotes broadening the definition of literacy. This made me think of Ohmann actually simply because I wonder what the result of broadening the definition would be. Would it become something to solidify class status as he suggests, or is broadening the definition of literacy allowing those outside of the "power" class to have some say in the definition? Is participatory culture making the issues of access in forms other than monetary become obsolete? By creating things that serve your purpose, are you able to undermine power?
Monday, September 26, 2011
2011 Horizon Report
"2011 Horizon Report." Educause, 08 Feb. 2011. Web. 13 Sep 2011. <http://www.educause.edu/Resources/2011HorizonReport/223122>.
Link to the report.
The Horizons Report identifies and discusses the implications in regard to teaching, learning, research and creative inquiry, what is being done now, and further reading for technologies they identify becoming main stream within certain time frames. This years report includes ebooks, and "mobiles" in the 12 month range, augmented reality and game based are 2-3 years and gesture based computing and learning analytics are 4-5 years. It will be interesting to see how some of this plays out. With the ebooks, they're popular, but personally won't get the most out of it until it's not only more interactive-I need to be able to write on it. I do currently use BB on my phone phone for TCC. It's also hepful in email access and discussion posts, but I couldn't grade with it and I haven't had a student that can type a paper on it yet. I have seen students do it with tablets though, so I could see it useful as a student. A couple of weeks ago, I had a student ask why they would want to access the library on their phone at Kaplan, so some students are still skeptical. When I read about learning analytics all I could think of was big brother, and the idea of power in silently watching via technology that Selfe and Selfe talked about.
When I read about the gesture based computing, all I could think of was Gmail's April Fool's joke.
Link to the report.
The Horizons Report identifies and discusses the implications in regard to teaching, learning, research and creative inquiry, what is being done now, and further reading for technologies they identify becoming main stream within certain time frames. This years report includes ebooks, and "mobiles" in the 12 month range, augmented reality and game based are 2-3 years and gesture based computing and learning analytics are 4-5 years. It will be interesting to see how some of this plays out. With the ebooks, they're popular, but personally won't get the most out of it until it's not only more interactive-I need to be able to write on it. I do currently use BB on my phone phone for TCC. It's also hepful in email access and discussion posts, but I couldn't grade with it and I haven't had a student that can type a paper on it yet. I have seen students do it with tablets though, so I could see it useful as a student. A couple of weeks ago, I had a student ask why they would want to access the library on their phone at Kaplan, so some students are still skeptical. When I read about learning analytics all I could think of was big brother, and the idea of power in silently watching via technology that Selfe and Selfe talked about.
When I read about the gesture based computing, all I could think of was Gmail's April Fool's joke.
ECAR 2010
Smith, Shannon D., and Judith B. Caruso. "ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2010." Educause, 22 Oct 2010. Web. 13 Sep 2011. <http://www.educause.edu/Resources/ECARStudyofUndergraduateStuden/217333>.
Link the the study.
This study reports on the research findings about undergraduate student use of technology in myriad ways. They've looked at student ownership and use of different types of technology in relation to school work as well as personal endeavors. The limits of the study would be that the target population is the traditional student-I would imagine that most of the numbers that showed up were not surprising when considering the traditional student and his/her use of and access to technology. Would these numbers be considered skewed b/c those that have access would be the ones responding?
I thought this was an interesting article about the uses of technology outside of school work. Again, limitations based on who is taking the survey because of who is being asked to take it, but interesting nonetheless. It had a particular connection to the Alexander article last week-technology can be used against the GLB community as well.
Link the the study.
This study reports on the research findings about undergraduate student use of technology in myriad ways. They've looked at student ownership and use of different types of technology in relation to school work as well as personal endeavors. The limits of the study would be that the target population is the traditional student-I would imagine that most of the numbers that showed up were not surprising when considering the traditional student and his/her use of and access to technology. Would these numbers be considered skewed b/c those that have access would be the ones responding?
I thought this was an interesting article about the uses of technology outside of school work. Again, limitations based on who is taking the survey because of who is being asked to take it, but interesting nonetheless. It had a particular connection to the Alexander article last week-technology can be used against the GLB community as well.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Baron- Pencils to Pixels
Baron, Dennis. "From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technologies." Computers in the Composition Classroom. Eds. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, and Elixabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2008. 116-134. Print.
In this article, Baron makes the argument that new technologies (from the "pencil to the pixel") go through similar stages if they "catch on" and the computer is newest development in a long history of literacy technologies. After a new technology is developed, whether or not it is widely used ultimately depends on how accessible it is, what the function is, and whether or not we can authenticate it. He takes the reader through a history of literacy technologies beginning with language itself, the use of clay tokens as the start of writing, writing itself, the pencil, the telephone, and the computer. One issue that comes up and is difficult to maneuver is the authentication of the digital world. As he says "As anyone knows who's lost a file or tried to revisit a website, electronic texts have a greater tendency to disappear than conventional print resources" (131). Finally, Baron brings up the same issues that have been themes through the rest of the readings in the book-access to literacy based on socioeconomic status and the technology fading into the background and becoming "natural."
I enjoyed the tone of this piece, and his integration of Thoreau as businessman instead of literary figure. I do have to agree with him that the computer is just another tool; however, with any tool, we need to determine whether or not that tools is best suited for our purposes and shouldn't forget that even the language we use is a tool. As a matter of fact, this reading (very indirectly) reminded me of Reddy's Toolmaker's Paradigm in that the technology (and literacy in that technology) plays a role in the communication created with it.
I suppose I should have guessed it, but there's a website called pencils.com that I thought was pretty cool, and relevant. At the bottom of the page, there is a link for the history of the pencil and free lesson plans on the pencil. Teaching with Technology right? :)
In this article, Baron makes the argument that new technologies (from the "pencil to the pixel") go through similar stages if they "catch on" and the computer is newest development in a long history of literacy technologies. After a new technology is developed, whether or not it is widely used ultimately depends on how accessible it is, what the function is, and whether or not we can authenticate it. He takes the reader through a history of literacy technologies beginning with language itself, the use of clay tokens as the start of writing, writing itself, the pencil, the telephone, and the computer. One issue that comes up and is difficult to maneuver is the authentication of the digital world. As he says "As anyone knows who's lost a file or tried to revisit a website, electronic texts have a greater tendency to disappear than conventional print resources" (131). Finally, Baron brings up the same issues that have been themes through the rest of the readings in the book-access to literacy based on socioeconomic status and the technology fading into the background and becoming "natural."
I enjoyed the tone of this piece, and his integration of Thoreau as businessman instead of literary figure. I do have to agree with him that the computer is just another tool; however, with any tool, we need to determine whether or not that tools is best suited for our purposes and shouldn't forget that even the language we use is a tool. As a matter of fact, this reading (very indirectly) reminded me of Reddy's Toolmaker's Paradigm in that the technology (and literacy in that technology) plays a role in the communication created with it.
I suppose I should have guessed it, but there's a website called pencils.com that I thought was pretty cool, and relevant. At the bottom of the page, there is a link for the history of the pencil and free lesson plans on the pencil. Teaching with Technology right? :)
Brain Rules Chapter 4 Notes
This week, I used popplet to take notes. This is the first time I used the program, and I did like it. I ended up creating a mind-map of sorts with a brain in the middle. I liked that I was able to add comments to each popple, and add things like googlemaps, facebook content, youtube videos and a link to a book on amazon that was relevant. I think this would be useful to a classroom setting in that students could use popplet's to try and pull ideas together individually, but also for group work. It could be used to help generate idea or to present ideas-you can export it as a presentation or a jpeg.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Bass-The Scholarship of Teaching: What's the problem?
Bass, Randy. "The Scholarship of Teaching: What's the problem?" Inventio. 1.1 (February 1999). 17 Sept. 2011. Web.<http://doit.gmu.edu//Archives/feb98/randybass.htm>
1. What did you like (and why)?
That Bass focused on the perceived learning of his students as a problem as opposed to assuming that good evaluations and high grades were equal to learning. This is an issue today and one that might never have an answer: how do we determine when meaningful learning has taken place? I also like that reading both of these articles has made me appreciate the field I'm in. We have a solid background in the kind of scholarship that has been discussed.
2. Where were you confused?
Nowhere.
3. Where would you like to know more (and why)?
I was interested in what scholarship has been done since this was published on the evaluation of learning in general.
1. What did you like (and why)?
That Bass focused on the perceived learning of his students as a problem as opposed to assuming that good evaluations and high grades were equal to learning. This is an issue today and one that might never have an answer: how do we determine when meaningful learning has taken place? I also like that reading both of these articles has made me appreciate the field I'm in. We have a solid background in the kind of scholarship that has been discussed.
2. Where were you confused?
Nowhere.
3. Where would you like to know more (and why)?
I was interested in what scholarship has been done since this was published on the evaluation of learning in general.
The Scholarship of Teaching: New Elaborations, New Developements
Hutchings, Pat and Lee S. Shulman."The Scholarship of Teaching: New Elaborations, New Developments." Change. 31.5 (September/October 1999): 10-15. 17 Sept. 2011. Web. <http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/elibrary/scholarship-teaching-new-elaborations-new-developments>
1. What did you like (and why)?
I liked that the article seemed to summarize where the field has come from, what advancements and expansions had been made at that point. This was both useful for doing further research and it gives the reader an idea of where the field is at the time. I also liked that they brought up the issue of "credible methods of inquiry" as this is something that is still questioned today, especially in relation to classroom-based research. They also encouraged the use of interdisciplinary work to inquire, investigate and support what they have to say. This is something I liked because it's something I've done in the past and I've found it to be helpful.
2. Where were you confused?
Nowhere.
3. Where would you like to know more (and why)?
What "what" questions have been answered? Have there been inquiries about inquiry as they have suggested? I'm interested in these questions as it seems that those questions were the way to broaden the scholarship. The article was written in 1999, so I'm curious whether or not the inquiry has moved beyond methods.
1. What did you like (and why)?
I liked that the article seemed to summarize where the field has come from, what advancements and expansions had been made at that point. This was both useful for doing further research and it gives the reader an idea of where the field is at the time. I also liked that they brought up the issue of "credible methods of inquiry" as this is something that is still questioned today, especially in relation to classroom-based research. They also encouraged the use of interdisciplinary work to inquire, investigate and support what they have to say. This is something I liked because it's something I've done in the past and I've found it to be helpful.
2. Where were you confused?
Nowhere.
3. Where would you like to know more (and why)?
What "what" questions have been answered? Have there been inquiries about inquiry as they have suggested? I'm interested in these questions as it seems that those questions were the way to broaden the scholarship. The article was written in 1999, so I'm curious whether or not the inquiry has moved beyond methods.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Ch. 6 Selfe: Technology and Literacy
Selfe, Cynthia L. "Technology and Literacy: A Story about the Perils of Not Paying Attention." Computers in the Composition Classroom. Eds. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, and Elixabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2008. 93-115. Print.
A link to the article.
Cynthia Selfe argues that by not paying attention to the ways technology is being used and taught, we are perpetuating the ideological framework that has defined literacy and illiteracy in the wider sense and in regard to technology itself. She argues that the concept of technological literacy was fueled by an economic move in the early to mid nighties to both create international dependency on the US for technology and create a self-perpetuating cycle of consumers (those who have learned the technology). She says that this binary (literate/illiterate) has been used to both supply workers for manual labors jobs in society, secure cash flow to those that are creating new technologies, and perpetuate the existing class system. Ultimately, the movement of "technological literacy" has only changed the tool or criteria used to determine literacy vs. illiteracy. She argues that we need to pay attention to what technology and our teaching of (and with) it are doing. We should be teaching students to critically analyze the technology and the related social issues. We need a broad definition of literacy skills, and work toward getting access to poor and minority students and citizens.
I thought that the article brought together a lot of what we've been reading, and the concerns were real ones not just in 1999, but today as well. When she mentioned the cycle of technology learner and consumer, I wondered if that was the case with the pencil as well. If someone was taught how to write, they would then need the tools to continue to do so. Literacy is certainly socially constructed; even as far back as classical rhetoricians. Many argued that in order to speak well, you needed to learn how to be orator. Simply being born, learning to speak, and using that language did not make you a rhetorician. It was used then to separate haves from have nots. It also made me wonder if it's gotten any better. Have we taken Selfe's advise and started paying attention?
I thought that the Journal of Literacy and Technology was pretty relevant to this article. And the Intel Education Site brought up some interesting questions (and fit was what Selfe was trying to argue?)
A link to the article.
Cynthia Selfe argues that by not paying attention to the ways technology is being used and taught, we are perpetuating the ideological framework that has defined literacy and illiteracy in the wider sense and in regard to technology itself. She argues that the concept of technological literacy was fueled by an economic move in the early to mid nighties to both create international dependency on the US for technology and create a self-perpetuating cycle of consumers (those who have learned the technology). She says that this binary (literate/illiterate) has been used to both supply workers for manual labors jobs in society, secure cash flow to those that are creating new technologies, and perpetuate the existing class system. Ultimately, the movement of "technological literacy" has only changed the tool or criteria used to determine literacy vs. illiteracy. She argues that we need to pay attention to what technology and our teaching of (and with) it are doing. We should be teaching students to critically analyze the technology and the related social issues. We need a broad definition of literacy skills, and work toward getting access to poor and minority students and citizens.
I thought that the article brought together a lot of what we've been reading, and the concerns were real ones not just in 1999, but today as well. When she mentioned the cycle of technology learner and consumer, I wondered if that was the case with the pencil as well. If someone was taught how to write, they would then need the tools to continue to do so. Literacy is certainly socially constructed; even as far back as classical rhetoricians. Many argued that in order to speak well, you needed to learn how to be orator. Simply being born, learning to speak, and using that language did not make you a rhetorician. It was used then to separate haves from have nots. It also made me wonder if it's gotten any better. Have we taken Selfe's advise and started paying attention?
I thought that the Journal of Literacy and Technology was pretty relevant to this article. And the Intel Education Site brought up some interesting questions (and fit was what Selfe was trying to argue?)
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Brain Rules Chapter 3 Notes
Okay, so I downloaded Powernote (by Diigo) to my phone and I was going to use the speech note to record my thoughts and post it to the blog. Epic fail. First, it's speech to text, so it wasn't exactly what I thought. Second, it did an absolutely terrible job of converting speech to text, it does it slowly, and only catches a couple words at a time. Maybe handy for a grocery list, but not for my purposes. So, I went back to the web and found www.voicethread.com. This was a new technology to me, but was intrigued because you can have several people commenting on the same image or video, etc. at the same time in different ways. So what I did was upload the picture you see below, and then used each one of the features to flesh out my notes. I can see this being very helpful in a group project, but also in an individual project. If you were making notes to yourself as you went along. Can't wait to have the time to play with it more. The first recording, was just me talking into my speaker, the second was using my phone (yes, voicethread called me, but I only had three minutes to talk), the third note was text, and the final one was supposed to be video, but couldn't get it to work. (I didn't try for very long though).
Enjoy!
Enjoy!
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Woodhouse-Hype or Hope?
Woodhouse, Rosamund. "Hype or Hope: Can the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Fulfill Its Promise?" International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 4.1(2010): 1-8. Web. 11 Sept. 2011. http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl.
This article assesses the value of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning over the last decade or so based on looking beyond "this is something we should do" to the evidence that it has been effective. The author uses Hutchings and Shulman’s “The Scholarship of Teaching: New Elaborations, New Developments” (1999) as a basis for the start of this research field, and pins it as a branch off of Boyer's Reconsidering Scholarship (1990). She pinpoints two reasons why SoTL has not been able to produce anything useful in pedagogical practices: epistemic and educational. Essentially, classroom based research and the inability to make generalities based on the evidence is being challenged, and teachers are expected to learn and put the findings into practice by reading published research. She suggests workshops, collaborative approaches and new media usage to help solve the educational problem. The epistemic problem, the author posits, will remain unsolved; however, research that cannot be generalized still has a place in that it sparks new research that can be. At the end, Woodhouse brings SoTL as defined by Hutchings and Shulman back under the umbrella created by Boyer in order to get rid of the debate over the appropriation of the scholarship of teaching and learning, before giving a summary of what needs to be done in order to create a new model of SoTL.
I was actually glad that Woodhouse brought it all back together (Hutchings & Shulman with Boyer) because when I first started reading, I wasn't sure why they felt the need to branch off into a whole new field of study under the "Scholarship of Teaching." I agree with the author that it should fall under the larger blanket of Research because Boyer's argument specifically supported the idea that the four areas of the Professoriate are linked together and overlapping. The new model that she proposes seems to try and marry the traditional academic standards of research with the SoTL research, thereby making SoTL research valid in academia.
This article assesses the value of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning over the last decade or so based on looking beyond "this is something we should do" to the evidence that it has been effective. The author uses Hutchings and Shulman’s “The Scholarship of Teaching: New Elaborations, New Developments” (1999) as a basis for the start of this research field, and pins it as a branch off of Boyer's Reconsidering Scholarship (1990). She pinpoints two reasons why SoTL has not been able to produce anything useful in pedagogical practices: epistemic and educational. Essentially, classroom based research and the inability to make generalities based on the evidence is being challenged, and teachers are expected to learn and put the findings into practice by reading published research. She suggests workshops, collaborative approaches and new media usage to help solve the educational problem. The epistemic problem, the author posits, will remain unsolved; however, research that cannot be generalized still has a place in that it sparks new research that can be. At the end, Woodhouse brings SoTL as defined by Hutchings and Shulman back under the umbrella created by Boyer in order to get rid of the debate over the appropriation of the scholarship of teaching and learning, before giving a summary of what needs to be done in order to create a new model of SoTL.
I was actually glad that Woodhouse brought it all back together (Hutchings & Shulman with Boyer) because when I first started reading, I wasn't sure why they felt the need to branch off into a whole new field of study under the "Scholarship of Teaching." I agree with the author that it should fall under the larger blanket of Research because Boyer's argument specifically supported the idea that the four areas of the Professoriate are linked together and overlapping. The new model that she proposes seems to try and marry the traditional academic standards of research with the SoTL research, thereby making SoTL research valid in academia.
Boyer-Scholarship Reconsidered
Boyer, Ernest, L. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990: 15-25. Print.
Ultimately, Boyer is calling for a broader definition of what it means to be a scholar. He brings in four areas: discovery, integration, application, and teaching. In order to be a scholar, all four are necessary parts of the process. Learning new information, making connections between the information, applying the learning and learning from the application, and teaching what you've learned. Each one informs the other, so they cannot be separated, but by including them all as in the scholarship 'process' we broaden the definition of scholarship.
I think Boyer brings up a great point. This is seen directly in debates in English Studies and how "we" came to be what we are today (or maybe what we should be today). The necessary pieces that he discusses influence and inform each other. I suppose it points to why it's so important for those that use technology in teaching to continue to study it. I think technology is fluid today-what's here today could be gone tomorrow and then back again once "they've" made changes to it. I also saw this as a call to interdisciplinary work. This we're seeing more of in English departments (because we're one of many "disciplines") however, I think the vision is for more departments to work together in order to learn (then starting the "cycle").
Ultimately, Boyer is calling for a broader definition of what it means to be a scholar. He brings in four areas: discovery, integration, application, and teaching. In order to be a scholar, all four are necessary parts of the process. Learning new information, making connections between the information, applying the learning and learning from the application, and teaching what you've learned. Each one informs the other, so they cannot be separated, but by including them all as in the scholarship 'process' we broaden the definition of scholarship.
I think Boyer brings up a great point. This is seen directly in debates in English Studies and how "we" came to be what we are today (or maybe what we should be today). The necessary pieces that he discusses influence and inform each other. I suppose it points to why it's so important for those that use technology in teaching to continue to study it. I think technology is fluid today-what's here today could be gone tomorrow and then back again once "they've" made changes to it. I also saw this as a call to interdisciplinary work. This we're seeing more of in English departments (because we're one of many "disciplines") however, I think the vision is for more departments to work together in order to learn (then starting the "cycle").
Friday, September 9, 2011
Jenkins-Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture
Jenkins, Henry, Katie Clinton, Ravi Purushotma, Alice J. Robison, Margaret Weigel. "Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century." Building the Field of Digital Media and Learning. 2006. The MacArthur Foundation. Web. 8 Sept. 2011. <http://digitallearning.macfound.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=enJLKQNlFiG&b=2108773&ct=3017973¬oc=1>
Active Link to White Paper
They begin by examining participatory culture and give examples of poor students who have done great things with media because of their "play" in new media. Using this as a basis, they argue that the skills are important, that our culture and expectations of what makes a contributing citizen are changing. Part of the problem is that students feel disconnected from the material in classrooms right now because they are "powerless" in that structure. They get no say, and can feel no connection because it's depersonalized and abstract. With that in mind they support the need to teach these skills in classrooms for three reasons: participation gap, transparency, ethics. They then go on to question what should be considered literacy, and explain that they see new media skills as social skills because of the effect they will have on their ability to work within society. This is followed by a list of core media literacy skills. The authors go through a list of skills giving detailed examples of why they're important and how they're playing out currently. The skills are: play, simulation, performance (role play), appropriation, multi-tasking, distributed cognition, collective intelligence, judgment, transmedia navigation, networking and negotiation. Finally, they discuss who should doing the teaching: schools, after-school programs, parents.
I liked that they essentially covered the WWWWWH's of 21st century literacy. I also liked that they didn't suggest throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They brought up a lot of good points about the positive effects of learning these skills, but also supporting why they should be learned in a "controlled" or safe environment. The examples and sources they use do a great job of explaining their point and examining how we'll do it. In fact, I'll be raiding their bibliography to read some of those studies firsthand. This document does, on the whole, play into the readings by Ohmann and Selfe & Selfe in that they suggest we teach students to criticize technology (as we should be) and they support closing what they call the "participation gap" by teaching students the skills necessary to function in our society in order to be successful (loosely related to Ohmann in that he suggests that technology is power of the haves over the have nots). This does raise the questions of: what is success? are we just preparing them for the "real world"? and if so what's wrong with that?
This first video is almost a video representation of what Jenkins has to say. It's about 2 mins. long.
This second video is interesting. A collection of teachers went out to find out how other practitioners define literacy. It was updated in 2009. It's about 8 mins, so a little longer, but interesting none the less.
Active Link to White Paper
They begin by examining participatory culture and give examples of poor students who have done great things with media because of their "play" in new media. Using this as a basis, they argue that the skills are important, that our culture and expectations of what makes a contributing citizen are changing. Part of the problem is that students feel disconnected from the material in classrooms right now because they are "powerless" in that structure. They get no say, and can feel no connection because it's depersonalized and abstract. With that in mind they support the need to teach these skills in classrooms for three reasons: participation gap, transparency, ethics. They then go on to question what should be considered literacy, and explain that they see new media skills as social skills because of the effect they will have on their ability to work within society. This is followed by a list of core media literacy skills. The authors go through a list of skills giving detailed examples of why they're important and how they're playing out currently. The skills are: play, simulation, performance (role play), appropriation, multi-tasking, distributed cognition, collective intelligence, judgment, transmedia navigation, networking and negotiation. Finally, they discuss who should doing the teaching: schools, after-school programs, parents.
I liked that they essentially covered the WWWWWH's of 21st century literacy. I also liked that they didn't suggest throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They brought up a lot of good points about the positive effects of learning these skills, but also supporting why they should be learned in a "controlled" or safe environment. The examples and sources they use do a great job of explaining their point and examining how we'll do it. In fact, I'll be raiding their bibliography to read some of those studies firsthand. This document does, on the whole, play into the readings by Ohmann and Selfe & Selfe in that they suggest we teach students to criticize technology (as we should be) and they support closing what they call the "participation gap" by teaching students the skills necessary to function in our society in order to be successful (loosely related to Ohmann in that he suggests that technology is power of the haves over the have nots). This does raise the questions of: what is success? are we just preparing them for the "real world"? and if so what's wrong with that?
This first video is almost a video representation of what Jenkins has to say. It's about 2 mins. long.
This second video is interesting. A collection of teachers went out to find out how other practitioners define literacy. It was updated in 2009. It's about 8 mins, so a little longer, but interesting none the less.
Selfe & Selfe: Politics of the Interface
Selfe, Cynthia L. and Richard J. Selfe, Jr. "The Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones." Computers in the Composition Classroom. Eds. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, and Elixabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2008. 64-85. Print.
Digital Article
Digital Article
So, in a nutshell, this continues the conversation started by Hawisher and Selfe. They build their concern about oppression/power structures through technology with the idea of borders. In moving from a vision of country borders to the borders created by a narrow vision of what the computer should "do," the article shows how something as basic as a pointer can alienate a user. They explain the computer and its interfaces as primarly growing out of a white, male, middle-class, business professional context, which has led to accessibility issues for those that don’t fit into any or all of those categories. There is issue in both the way computers are physically used in minority vs. majority classrooms as well as issues in the enforced cultural standards that the computer design/map/interface has put onto the user. The authors give three suggestions for balancing the power and making the interface more accessible to those unfamiliar with the dominant culture that created it: become technology critics and users, contribute to design (become the teacher/software designer), re-conceive the interface borders.
My thoughts on Selfe & Selfe are a bit scattered, but this is what came up as I was reading:
So what will happen now that much of the computer programming does not happen in the US where English is privileged? The other question is: would the same issues have developed if another country had been center stage for many of the developments? This made me think of a couple of summers ago when I was in Spain, because the ISP was local all of the websites that I pulled up automatically came up in Spanish. I had to go in and manually change Google to US English. I thought it was amazing. Maybe not technologically so, it's pretty simple to understand the how, but it made me happy that everything wasn't so American English-centric.
We’ve seen changes in language availability since this article came out, but it was only in the ‘90’s that people started bringing computers into their homes. We didn’t own one until 2000. I was a sophomore in high school. Before that, I used a typewriter or the library. Technology, regardless of the type, has always been “trickle down.” If you look at VHS, vs. DVD, vs. Blueray. “Eventually” prices come down as they trickle down deeper into the market. People wait for prices to come down on certain luxuries. Until recently, weren’t owning personal computers just a luxury? The computer was initially meant for the military and then the business world before it “invaded” homes. Now that they’re more popular in homes (in fact more people now work from home), do they still hold these values?
I do think that the Selfe's are right in that we need to be critical, but that's the case with most cultural developments and tools. We should always ask: is this the best tool for the job?
This link will take you to the Unicode website. I was interested in what was being done today about such access issues, and despite the fact that when you click on the website it's in English, it does allow much more access than there was to multilingual technology than in 1994.
My thoughts on Selfe & Selfe are a bit scattered, but this is what came up as I was reading:
So what will happen now that much of the computer programming does not happen in the US where English is privileged? The other question is: would the same issues have developed if another country had been center stage for many of the developments? This made me think of a couple of summers ago when I was in Spain, because the ISP was local all of the websites that I pulled up automatically came up in Spanish. I had to go in and manually change Google to US English. I thought it was amazing. Maybe not technologically so, it's pretty simple to understand the how, but it made me happy that everything wasn't so American English-centric.
We’ve seen changes in language availability since this article came out, but it was only in the ‘90’s that people started bringing computers into their homes. We didn’t own one until 2000. I was a sophomore in high school. Before that, I used a typewriter or the library. Technology, regardless of the type, has always been “trickle down.” If you look at VHS, vs. DVD, vs. Blueray. “Eventually” prices come down as they trickle down deeper into the market. People wait for prices to come down on certain luxuries. Until recently, weren’t owning personal computers just a luxury? The computer was initially meant for the military and then the business world before it “invaded” homes. Now that they’re more popular in homes (in fact more people now work from home), do they still hold these values?
I do think that the Selfe's are right in that we need to be critical, but that's the case with most cultural developments and tools. We should always ask: is this the best tool for the job?
This link will take you to the Unicode website. I was interested in what was being done today about such access issues, and despite the fact that when you click on the website it's in English, it does allow much more access than there was to multilingual technology than in 1994.
Ohmann-Literacy, Technology and Monopoly Capital
Ohmann, Richard. “Literacy, Technology and Monopoly Capital.” Computers in the Composition Classroom. Eds. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, and Elixabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2008. 20-34. Print.
PDF Version of Article
Ohmann claims is that the entire literacy debate is a top-down issue. The concept of literacy is meant to keep a division of the classes. He closely ties economic change over the last hundred years or so with concepts of literacy (both our "traditional" concepts of it and technological literacy that we today call 21st century literacy). Ultimately, monopoly capitalism was the answer to many social issues in the late 19th century. Hello big business and the micromanagement of labor. He suggests that technology (regardless of the form) has only thrived in order to serve the purposes of those in power. Gatekeeping we could probably call it. New technologies have been created and perpetuated in order to up productivity. Ohmann supports the idea that, in the long run, computers and technology do little to change the class system and in some ways reinforce it. By using computers in the classroom and promoting computer literacy we are encouraging the division of class, perpetuating monopoly capital in the classroom, and continuing to deskill the future labor force.
His commentary on computers was interesting. I wonder what he would say about the pocket size computers many of us have today. He does have a point that not everyone needs to be a computer software engineer; however, that also means that we are limited by those who do become the computer software engineer. Something that did strike me was his discussion of the skill being embodied in the machine. At the time this was published, that might have been true: computers computed. I wonder how much of that is true today. This again brings up the question of what is literacy? Is knowing how to program a computer literacy? Is knowing how to compose something in a pre-determined program (such as animoto) literacy?
The tagline for this blog is "Improving Business Through Digital Literacy." The page that the link takes you to is a Social Media Monopoly board that was in the think tank for Hasbro in 2010 from what I gather.
PDF Version of Article
Ohmann claims is that the entire literacy debate is a top-down issue. The concept of literacy is meant to keep a division of the classes. He closely ties economic change over the last hundred years or so with concepts of literacy (both our "traditional" concepts of it and technological literacy that we today call 21st century literacy). Ultimately, monopoly capitalism was the answer to many social issues in the late 19th century. Hello big business and the micromanagement of labor. He suggests that technology (regardless of the form) has only thrived in order to serve the purposes of those in power. Gatekeeping we could probably call it. New technologies have been created and perpetuated in order to up productivity. Ohmann supports the idea that, in the long run, computers and technology do little to change the class system and in some ways reinforce it. By using computers in the classroom and promoting computer literacy we are encouraging the division of class, perpetuating monopoly capital in the classroom, and continuing to deskill the future labor force.
His commentary on computers was interesting. I wonder what he would say about the pocket size computers many of us have today. He does have a point that not everyone needs to be a computer software engineer; however, that also means that we are limited by those who do become the computer software engineer. Something that did strike me was his discussion of the skill being embodied in the machine. At the time this was published, that might have been true: computers computed. I wonder how much of that is true today. This again brings up the question of what is literacy? Is knowing how to program a computer literacy? Is knowing how to compose something in a pre-determined program (such as animoto) literacy?
The tagline for this blog is "Improving Business Through Digital Literacy." The page that the link takes you to is a Social Media Monopoly board that was in the think tank for Hasbro in 2010 from what I gather.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Brain Rules Chapter 2 Notes
This week, I took a look at Stuxy as my new technology. It was brand new to me, and I actually had a lot of fun with it. Essentially, in Stixy, you create what they call a "Stixyboard," which allows you to collaborate on projects with others. It is limiting in that it seems you can upload documents and photos to work on, but that's about it. I liked the sticky notes and the to do lists that allowed for better collaboration. I also liked that it was "limitless." You weren't confined to just the space where you put your document, and you could have more than one document or photo in your Stixyboard. You could even have a different style sticky note for each person participating. It made the space seem more like a real idea board. I could see this being used in a group project that involved writing a paper together or something that could be saved as an image and changed within the software at a later date. I suppose you would just continue to upload new drafts as they came along. I again had the embedding issue. The technology itself is conducive to continued collaboration, so the best it would give me was a link to share with guests. I also took a screen shot so you could see the image directly in the blog.
Link to my Stixyboard
Link to my Stixyboard
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
NCTE Position Statement
When I first read the background and resolution on composing with non-print media, I was both proud and excited about NCTE's stance on non-print composition. They focus on broadening the definition of literacy, promoting multi-media composition, teaching educators how do to so and how to teach it, and reemphasizing the 1983 resolution that focuses on access and research.
I suppose I was surprised that this isn't incorporated into more teaching of writing courses. When I took Teaching College Comp for my Master's this wasn't even brought up. I specifically liked the non-linear emphasis that the resolution makes since many new media applications work best in a non-linear presentation. I was also impressed (yet not surprised) with the addition of the need to be both theoretically and pedagogically grounded. Again, it brings up the idea the idea that you don't just use it to use it.
As of right now, I'm not sure what I would revise. However, that might change as we move through the course. For me, this resolution aligns with beliefs I already hold. However, the teaching of teachers would be a key point to think about, in addition to the idea that teachers are learning as they're teaching (especially with technology). There does seem to be a significant lack in action on "our" part of the education of educators aspect of the resolution. As far as writing goes, it brings up a very good point of 'what is writing" and "why do we do it the way we do"? I ultimately do prefer the word "composition."
For the WWWWWH's, I have some simple answers, but then addition questions for most of them.
Who-The document itself is particularly directed at teachers, administrators and researchers involved in English and Language arts. However, it does bring up the question of who is teaching? Who is learning? Who should be doing the research?
What-The document brings up the question of what is literacy? What constitutes a non-print source? Is a photocopy of a chapter in a book a non-print source? Does it take different skills to both create and analyze such a source?
Where-I think "Everywhere and Anywhere" sums up the "where" of this resolution. It specifically encourages such production at all levels of "government," but we also have the interplay of the computer-based applications which are more and more socially controlled.
When-Now and in the future, but in looking back, we maybe able to learn from the integration of "other" technologies. When will we start to see significant application of this resolution? Should we be using non-print media across all age groups?
Why-I suppose my answer to this would be because it's part of our cultural context, but the questions we should be asking are: Why is this even an issue? Why is it important?
How-How will we teach new teachers? How will we accommodate for access issues? How will we implement the items on the resolution?
I suppose I was surprised that this isn't incorporated into more teaching of writing courses. When I took Teaching College Comp for my Master's this wasn't even brought up. I specifically liked the non-linear emphasis that the resolution makes since many new media applications work best in a non-linear presentation. I was also impressed (yet not surprised) with the addition of the need to be both theoretically and pedagogically grounded. Again, it brings up the idea the idea that you don't just use it to use it.
As of right now, I'm not sure what I would revise. However, that might change as we move through the course. For me, this resolution aligns with beliefs I already hold. However, the teaching of teachers would be a key point to think about, in addition to the idea that teachers are learning as they're teaching (especially with technology). There does seem to be a significant lack in action on "our" part of the education of educators aspect of the resolution. As far as writing goes, it brings up a very good point of 'what is writing" and "why do we do it the way we do"? I ultimately do prefer the word "composition."
For the WWWWWH's, I have some simple answers, but then addition questions for most of them.
Who-The document itself is particularly directed at teachers, administrators and researchers involved in English and Language arts. However, it does bring up the question of who is teaching? Who is learning? Who should be doing the research?
What-The document brings up the question of what is literacy? What constitutes a non-print source? Is a photocopy of a chapter in a book a non-print source? Does it take different skills to both create and analyze such a source?
Where-I think "Everywhere and Anywhere" sums up the "where" of this resolution. It specifically encourages such production at all levels of "government," but we also have the interplay of the computer-based applications which are more and more socially controlled.
When-Now and in the future, but in looking back, we maybe able to learn from the integration of "other" technologies. When will we start to see significant application of this resolution? Should we be using non-print media across all age groups?
Why-I suppose my answer to this would be because it's part of our cultural context, but the questions we should be asking are: Why is this even an issue? Why is it important?
How-How will we teach new teachers? How will we accommodate for access issues? How will we implement the items on the resolution?
Chapter 3: Hawisher & Selfe
Hawisher, Gail, and Cynthia Selfe. "The Rhetoric of Technology and the Electronic Writing Class." College Composition and Communication. 42.1 (1991): 55-65. Web. 5 Sep. 2011. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/357539>.
Hawisher and Selfe discuss the lack of critical analysis of the use of technology in the writing classroom. They begin by explaining and examining the positive feedback that instructors have on the use of the technology based on a survey they conducted. After we are introduced to the overly positive "rhetoric of technology," the authors explain the results of a series of observations they made about the actual use of technology in the classroom. They found that not only did the use of computers not support the perceptions of the instructors that were surveyed, they found that many times they enforced the power structure that these instructors assumed they were getting away from; therefore, creating a conflict between theory and practice.
What I liked about the article was that I assume it was one of the first looks at criticizing the use of technology, which is always important. The concerns that they had were very relevant to the time period. In fact, some issues are still relevant. As far as dislikes, I took issue with the question they asked in their survey "Do you prefer teaching writing with traditional methods or with computers?" (58) simply because it anticipates an either/or dichotomy.
I got the overall impression that teaching with technology is ultimately teaching with a word processor, like I said above, changing the technology won't change the practices when you don't know what you're doing. If students were given time to write in class with pen/paper, they would be making the same observations. This means that the issue is with the teaching, not necessarily the technology. Don't get me wrong, technology can and does change dynamics, etc. but if you have instructors that are poorly prepared, it will show regardless of the technology. Ultimately, it comes down to a question of whether or not the technology being used (pencil, computer, etc.) is the best technology for the purpose of the activity.
The electronic bulletin board is essentially the backbone to distance learning as we know it. The Discussion Board of Blackboard (BB) is recreated in other educational platforms as well as in blogging. This is a tough issue as far as "power" in the classroom is concerned. All I can do is share what I have done to balance the power. In my discussions for courses, I require students to answer certain questions (typically involving reading and reacting as we are doing here), and then they are required to respond to two classmates. During the week, as they are responding, I only read and respond to those I need to. I respond to their introductions, to their posts when they're choosing topics, and everything else I simply skim for problem students. This is an area that I'm not sure Hawisher and Selfe anticipated. "Flaming" is easier when you have to come f2f with a classmate or an instructor. I've had more student issues teaching online courses then f2f courses. Finding the best solution to discussions in online courses is something I'm still working out, and I think this article will overall be helpful in that pursuit.
A question that this reading made me thing of is: Will multi-media composition help to shake up the authority structures? Multi-media tend to have less perceived "correct" answers than traditional word processing. This isn't something I found confusing, but maybe something for future research.
The internet link that I found actually just lists this article in a collection of new media research. It looks to be a wiki kept by a class. I thought it would be interesting to include since there seems to be additional articles read.
Hawisher and Selfe discuss the lack of critical analysis of the use of technology in the writing classroom. They begin by explaining and examining the positive feedback that instructors have on the use of the technology based on a survey they conducted. After we are introduced to the overly positive "rhetoric of technology," the authors explain the results of a series of observations they made about the actual use of technology in the classroom. They found that not only did the use of computers not support the perceptions of the instructors that were surveyed, they found that many times they enforced the power structure that these instructors assumed they were getting away from; therefore, creating a conflict between theory and practice.
What I liked about the article was that I assume it was one of the first looks at criticizing the use of technology, which is always important. The concerns that they had were very relevant to the time period. In fact, some issues are still relevant. As far as dislikes, I took issue with the question they asked in their survey "Do you prefer teaching writing with traditional methods or with computers?" (58) simply because it anticipates an either/or dichotomy.
I got the overall impression that teaching with technology is ultimately teaching with a word processor, like I said above, changing the technology won't change the practices when you don't know what you're doing. If students were given time to write in class with pen/paper, they would be making the same observations. This means that the issue is with the teaching, not necessarily the technology. Don't get me wrong, technology can and does change dynamics, etc. but if you have instructors that are poorly prepared, it will show regardless of the technology. Ultimately, it comes down to a question of whether or not the technology being used (pencil, computer, etc.) is the best technology for the purpose of the activity.
The electronic bulletin board is essentially the backbone to distance learning as we know it. The Discussion Board of Blackboard (BB) is recreated in other educational platforms as well as in blogging. This is a tough issue as far as "power" in the classroom is concerned. All I can do is share what I have done to balance the power. In my discussions for courses, I require students to answer certain questions (typically involving reading and reacting as we are doing here), and then they are required to respond to two classmates. During the week, as they are responding, I only read and respond to those I need to. I respond to their introductions, to their posts when they're choosing topics, and everything else I simply skim for problem students. This is an area that I'm not sure Hawisher and Selfe anticipated. "Flaming" is easier when you have to come f2f with a classmate or an instructor. I've had more student issues teaching online courses then f2f courses. Finding the best solution to discussions in online courses is something I'm still working out, and I think this article will overall be helpful in that pursuit.
A question that this reading made me thing of is: Will multi-media composition help to shake up the authority structures? Multi-media tend to have less perceived "correct" answers than traditional word processing. This isn't something I found confusing, but maybe something for future research.
The internet link that I found actually just lists this article in a collection of new media research. It looks to be a wiki kept by a class. I thought it would be interesting to include since there seems to be additional articles read.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Brain Rules Intro & Chapter 1 Notes
Chapter 1 was interesting and definitely made me want to keep up an exercise program. This week, I created my notes in a program called Juxio (www.juxio.com). This was a new one for me. Essentially, you're creating posters using images and text. The template I choose allowed me to choose a certain number of characters and then fill those characters with images. I chose images of roadways, exercising and brains in addition to screen shots of text that represented what I learned in the chapter. It was easy to upload images and insert them; it works by drag and drop. When I started, I thought I'd be able to insert text directly, but couldn't figure it out (hence the text screen shots).
The good thing is that if you want to share online, it's free. You can share via email, twitter or Facebook, or you can save it as a pdf. However, I had trouble making it something that would work for the blog. I ended up having to share it on Facebook in order to get a link to copy and paste into the blog itself. In order to get the actual image in the blog, I ended up doing was saving it as a PDF, then taking a screen shot and uploading it to the blog as an image.
I can see this being useful in teachers or students expressing ideas or arguments visually. They even have some templates that are set up for younger kids to use. Overall, I think this technology worked for what I wanted to do as I felt that what I learned from this chapter was best expressed through images. Much of language in the chapter brought images up and make comparisons that were visual in nature. Maybe introductions could be done using this, or it could be used for students to concisely express the end of unit learning. Most of the limits are put on you because they want you to pay for print outs of your poster, which may be worth it if you were doing it for a class you were teaching or you had students creating posters. If you would like to view a larger version of this image, this link should work.
The good thing is that if you want to share online, it's free. You can share via email, twitter or Facebook, or you can save it as a pdf. However, I had trouble making it something that would work for the blog. I ended up having to share it on Facebook in order to get a link to copy and paste into the blog itself. In order to get the actual image in the blog, I ended up doing was saving it as a PDF, then taking a screen shot and uploading it to the blog as an image.
I can see this being useful in teachers or students expressing ideas or arguments visually. They even have some templates that are set up for younger kids to use. Overall, I think this technology worked for what I wanted to do as I felt that what I learned from this chapter was best expressed through images. Much of language in the chapter brought images up and make comparisons that were visual in nature. Maybe introductions could be done using this, or it could be used for students to concisely express the end of unit learning. Most of the limits are put on you because they want you to pay for print outs of your poster, which may be worth it if you were doing it for a class you were teaching or you had students creating posters. If you would like to view a larger version of this image, this link should work.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Introduction
So...I'm Catrina Mitchum, and I'm in this class because it falls directly where my interests lie: technology and comp. I currently teach all online courses and want to make sure I have some of the theoretical background to support what I'm doing as well as learn technologies I'm unfamiliar with. A goal of mine is to have a nice collection of possibilities to work with and the resources to make sure I stay updated. I feel like it's going to be impossible to keep up with everything that comes out, and I honestly don't want to. I just want to be able to try new ones as they come and keep the ones that will be useful to me rhetorically.
As far as interesting stuff about me goes, I suppose that depends on what you find interesting :) So here's a brief list of things: I'm the oldest of 7. My eyes change color (sometimes they're green and sometimes they're blue). I live in Hawaii. I'm taking vocal lessons; it's something I enjoy to let off some steam. Monday will start the third phase of P90X for me, and yes it's kicking my butt.
As far as interesting stuff about me goes, I suppose that depends on what you find interesting :) So here's a brief list of things: I'm the oldest of 7. My eyes change color (sometimes they're green and sometimes they're blue). I live in Hawaii. I'm taking vocal lessons; it's something I enjoy to let off some steam. Monday will start the third phase of P90X for me, and yes it's kicking my butt.
Create your own video slideshow at animoto.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)