Thursday, September 27, 2007
I know you're all anxiously awaiting my abstract for the Barton piece, but I just couldn't get it together. I won't bore you with excuses, but between 4 kids, 2 jobs, school, and a junker car, each day is a new adventure - and today's adventure ends with a bent steering-rod and no abstract. My apologies. - Mike
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
“Profiles as Conversation: Networked Identity Performance on Friendster”
By danah boyd and John Heer
Using performance theory as a springboard, boyd and Heer jump from the premise that “communication is inherently embodied and contextually dependant” into the world of “Friendster.” In this fascinating study, the authors examine what, in the digital world of “Friendster,” constitutes identity, conversation, and social groups.
Frienster started in 2002 as a network of “gay men, bloggers, and attendees of the Burning Man festival.” This network went worldwide and broadened, and by the time this article was written “most early adopters have eschewed the service, calling it ‘so 2003.’”
Much like facebook and MySpace, Friendster has a place for a picture and profile on each member’s page. It also has a meeage board. Unlike facebook and MySpace (or like them, depending on the motives of the user) Friendster is primarily a sort of network for dating. It also has a space for testimonials, where members recommend each other to other members.
To study the dymanics of Friendster, Heer and boyd employed two methodologies: ethnography and visualization. They participated on the site, observed it, interviewed members, and gave surveys for nine months in 2003 (thus, the ethnography). The visualization portion of the study included surfing profiles, pictures, and “searching for common interests.”
Some questions boyd and Heer posed were:
- How is context transferred, created, and interpreted in digital environments?
- How are conversations initiated online?
- What are the goals of digital conversations and how are they maintained?
- What are the possibilities and consequences of replicability, searchability, and persistence?
A recurring topic in this study was the fact that in digital environments, social walls could be easily demolished. “For example, work and the pub are … geographically disjoint...” in networks like Friendster, “the office and the pub become one.” It was brought up again and again that one’s boss may happen upon one’s page, which may prove awkward. Even more, the boss may ask to be one’s friend, letting the boss another step further into one’s personal life. If this weren’t sticky enough, who one’s friends are say a lot about that person, and may arouse speculation. In one instance, a professor a (former?) student of hers started conversing over the site, and other students started asking the professor on dates, etc, and friends of the prof started wondering about the relationship between the prof and the one student she started talking to in this Friendster setting. In another situation, students of a high school teacher happened upon her site, and though her profile didn’t have anything particularly incriminating, her friend’s sites did. And the students questioned her about it. “The content provides both context for the service as well as information about an individual’s identity.”
So – that the barrier that shelters the private from the public/professional can be cracked causes the question of audience to arise. Who is the audience for these sites? For Friendster, users the ideal audience seems to be, ideally, lovers, friends, and friendly online acquaintances --but only ideally is this the case. In actuality, it can be, and likely is, much broader. There was even a case of a woman’s page being published in the Chronicle.
With the exception of instances where Friendsters meet outside of their Friendster site, the social set-up is largely superficial in the sense that identity as portrayed can obviously be skewed. This fact surfaced quite pronouncedly with the “Fakesters.” These were people who made fictitious profiles and posted them with corresponding pictures. This caused some sort of glitch in the system because of the degrees of separation factor (four degrees of separation – I didn’t get that part about the networking…?). These imposters also overloaded the network at times. The network providers started seeking out Fakesters, and deleted their accounts. This caused an uprising Fakesters deemed the “Fakester Revolution,” as these members went forth to avenge the “Fakester Genocide.” In this conflict, these “fictitious” members pointed out that “none of this is real.” (So, perhaps the Fakester profiles weren’t all that different in nature from the profiles some of those who considered themselves the “serious” users.) This was the most amusing part of the article for me.
But, it was all interesting to me, because I never though of online communities in such depth, though I did realize that some of these things (personal life being invaded by professional life, etc.) were happening in various online contexts (blogging, too).
By danah boyd and John Heer
Using performance theory as a springboard, boyd and Heer jump from the premise that “communication is inherently embodied and contextually dependant” into the world of “Friendster.” In this fascinating study, the authors examine what, in the digital world of “Friendster,” constitutes identity, conversation, and social groups.
Frienster started in 2002 as a network of “gay men, bloggers, and attendees of the Burning Man festival.” This network went worldwide and broadened, and by the time this article was written “most early adopters have eschewed the service, calling it ‘so 2003.’”
Much like facebook and MySpace, Friendster has a place for a picture and profile on each member’s page. It also has a meeage board. Unlike facebook and MySpace (or like them, depending on the motives of the user) Friendster is primarily a sort of network for dating. It also has a space for testimonials, where members recommend each other to other members.
To study the dymanics of Friendster, Heer and boyd employed two methodologies: ethnography and visualization. They participated on the site, observed it, interviewed members, and gave surveys for nine months in 2003 (thus, the ethnography). The visualization portion of the study included surfing profiles, pictures, and “searching for common interests.”
Some questions boyd and Heer posed were:
- How is context transferred, created, and interpreted in digital environments?
- How are conversations initiated online?
- What are the goals of digital conversations and how are they maintained?
- What are the possibilities and consequences of replicability, searchability, and persistence?
A recurring topic in this study was the fact that in digital environments, social walls could be easily demolished. “For example, work and the pub are … geographically disjoint...” in networks like Friendster, “the office and the pub become one.” It was brought up again and again that one’s boss may happen upon one’s page, which may prove awkward. Even more, the boss may ask to be one’s friend, letting the boss another step further into one’s personal life. If this weren’t sticky enough, who one’s friends are say a lot about that person, and may arouse speculation. In one instance, a professor a (former?) student of hers started conversing over the site, and other students started asking the professor on dates, etc, and friends of the prof started wondering about the relationship between the prof and the one student she started talking to in this Friendster setting. In another situation, students of a high school teacher happened upon her site, and though her profile didn’t have anything particularly incriminating, her friend’s sites did. And the students questioned her about it. “The content provides both context for the service as well as information about an individual’s identity.”
So – that the barrier that shelters the private from the public/professional can be cracked causes the question of audience to arise. Who is the audience for these sites? For Friendster, users the ideal audience seems to be, ideally, lovers, friends, and friendly online acquaintances --but only ideally is this the case. In actuality, it can be, and likely is, much broader. There was even a case of a woman’s page being published in the Chronicle.
With the exception of instances where Friendsters meet outside of their Friendster site, the social set-up is largely superficial in the sense that identity as portrayed can obviously be skewed. This fact surfaced quite pronouncedly with the “Fakesters.” These were people who made fictitious profiles and posted them with corresponding pictures. This caused some sort of glitch in the system because of the degrees of separation factor (four degrees of separation – I didn’t get that part about the networking…?). These imposters also overloaded the network at times. The network providers started seeking out Fakesters, and deleted their accounts. This caused an uprising Fakesters deemed the “Fakester Revolution,” as these members went forth to avenge the “Fakester Genocide.” In this conflict, these “fictitious” members pointed out that “none of this is real.” (So, perhaps the Fakester profiles weren’t all that different in nature from the profiles some of those who considered themselves the “serious” users.) This was the most amusing part of the article for me.
But, it was all interesting to me, because I never though of online communities in such depth, though I did realize that some of these things (personal life being invaded by professional life, etc.) were happening in various online contexts (blogging, too).
I found a website that lists the most popular open-source software websites. They even have an open-source web builder called Amaya--I read a review, however, that said it was a bit bulky and not as user friendly as Dreamweaver or Frontpage.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
David Huffaker’s “The Educated Blogger: Using Weblogs to Promote Literacy in the Classroom”
This article basically sets out to describe why and how blogs should be used in educational settings. Huffaker defines the features of blogs: offer instant publishing, people can comment/give feedback to different posts, are archival, and other bloggers can hyperlink to them.
Huffaker suggests that we should not ignore blogs in educational setting because a majority of blog users (40.4%) are adolescents—people under the age of 20. He writes, “This article hypothesizes that blogs can be an important addition to educational technology initiatives because they promote literacy though storytelling, allow collaborative learning, provide anytime-anywhere access, and remain fungible across academic disciplines” (92).
Huffaker begins his argument by writing about the importance of literacy. Education is based on reading and writing, and educators need to take every opportunity to get students to read and write. Huffaker writes about an emerging literacy—digital fluency. Digital fluency is basically about people becoming comfortable using technology. He writes, “The uses of educational technology have a two-fold advantage: they can promote the types of literacy traditionally encouraged in learning, as well as the digital fluency needed to prosper in the digital age” (93). He continues that blogs are a great way to get students to increase their literacy (especially digital fluency) because blogs are easy to use and allow students the opportunity to get more comfortable with computers.
Storytelling is often used as one way of introducing kids to literacy. This is an effective way of getting children used to expressing themselves while being entertaining at the same time. Blogs open up the possibility of incorporating storytelling into educational settings. And again, using technology in this way would help students with their digital fluency.
Blogs can easily be utilized in classrooms and offer many benefits. Students have an opportunity to express themselves in the same way that they can in a diary or journal while at the same time being hooked into a digital community. Blogs have a simple design making them accessible to most people. Because blogs are so simple, they are easy for teachers to teach. One of the biggest draws to blogs is that they are based on the internet, making them accessible anytime from anywhere there is internet.
Blogs allow personal expression while at the same create a sense of community. Blogs open up opportunities for feedback and comments, and bloggers can also link to each other’s blogs. This is essentially a space where the private and public mingle.
Another positive feature of blogs is that they can be used in any discipline. Huffaker gives examples how blogs have been used in science and math classes—it does not have to be used solely be English instructors. He writes, “any discipline can use blogs to approach a style of meta-learning, where concepts of contexts are discussed and articulated in both a personalized and group exchange, and ideas are built on previous educational content” (95).
Huffaker continues by listing more reasons why blogs should be used in classrooms. First and foremost, blogs bring the idea of audience to life for students. Blogs also are easy enough for students of all ages to use (including an example that he gives of third graders using blogs). Blogs are not confined by a certain group, specifically that one school using blogs is not stuck only with each other’s blogs—blogs transcend individual schools. Blogs are also good for teachers to use because they can work as an archive of the work they’ve done. Ultimately, the biggest draw that blogs offer is that they create sense of community.
COMMENTS:
I think the most important thing that Huffaker wanted people to learn about blogs is that they are easy to use, which up until a few weeks ago I would have disagreed with—not because it isn’t true, but because I didn’t know how easy it was until I was forced to learn. My question becomes, how can we convince educators to give them a try? I think Huffaker does a nice job of listing reasons—sense of community, ease of use, the importance of digital fluency—all good reasons why blogs are a reasonable place to start or add to using technology in the classroom. I also think that Huffaker made sense by relating blogs to journals—an already pedagogically accepted learning tool. Perhaps it would be beneficial to push this idea when trying to convince educators of why they should give blogs a chance.
This article basically sets out to describe why and how blogs should be used in educational settings. Huffaker defines the features of blogs: offer instant publishing, people can comment/give feedback to different posts, are archival, and other bloggers can hyperlink to them.
Huffaker suggests that we should not ignore blogs in educational setting because a majority of blog users (40.4%) are adolescents—people under the age of 20. He writes, “This article hypothesizes that blogs can be an important addition to educational technology initiatives because they promote literacy though storytelling, allow collaborative learning, provide anytime-anywhere access, and remain fungible across academic disciplines” (92).
Huffaker begins his argument by writing about the importance of literacy. Education is based on reading and writing, and educators need to take every opportunity to get students to read and write. Huffaker writes about an emerging literacy—digital fluency. Digital fluency is basically about people becoming comfortable using technology. He writes, “The uses of educational technology have a two-fold advantage: they can promote the types of literacy traditionally encouraged in learning, as well as the digital fluency needed to prosper in the digital age” (93). He continues that blogs are a great way to get students to increase their literacy (especially digital fluency) because blogs are easy to use and allow students the opportunity to get more comfortable with computers.
Storytelling is often used as one way of introducing kids to literacy. This is an effective way of getting children used to expressing themselves while being entertaining at the same time. Blogs open up the possibility of incorporating storytelling into educational settings. And again, using technology in this way would help students with their digital fluency.
Blogs can easily be utilized in classrooms and offer many benefits. Students have an opportunity to express themselves in the same way that they can in a diary or journal while at the same time being hooked into a digital community. Blogs have a simple design making them accessible to most people. Because blogs are so simple, they are easy for teachers to teach. One of the biggest draws to blogs is that they are based on the internet, making them accessible anytime from anywhere there is internet.
Blogs allow personal expression while at the same create a sense of community. Blogs open up opportunities for feedback and comments, and bloggers can also link to each other’s blogs. This is essentially a space where the private and public mingle.
Another positive feature of blogs is that they can be used in any discipline. Huffaker gives examples how blogs have been used in science and math classes—it does not have to be used solely be English instructors. He writes, “any discipline can use blogs to approach a style of meta-learning, where concepts of contexts are discussed and articulated in both a personalized and group exchange, and ideas are built on previous educational content” (95).
Huffaker continues by listing more reasons why blogs should be used in classrooms. First and foremost, blogs bring the idea of audience to life for students. Blogs also are easy enough for students of all ages to use (including an example that he gives of third graders using blogs). Blogs are not confined by a certain group, specifically that one school using blogs is not stuck only with each other’s blogs—blogs transcend individual schools. Blogs are also good for teachers to use because they can work as an archive of the work they’ve done. Ultimately, the biggest draw that blogs offer is that they create sense of community.
COMMENTS:
I think the most important thing that Huffaker wanted people to learn about blogs is that they are easy to use, which up until a few weeks ago I would have disagreed with—not because it isn’t true, but because I didn’t know how easy it was until I was forced to learn. My question becomes, how can we convince educators to give them a try? I think Huffaker does a nice job of listing reasons—sense of community, ease of use, the importance of digital fluency—all good reasons why blogs are a reasonable place to start or add to using technology in the classroom. I also think that Huffaker made sense by relating blogs to journals—an already pedagogically accepted learning tool. Perhaps it would be beneficial to push this idea when trying to convince educators of why they should give blogs a chance.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Friday, September 21, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
New Media and the Slow Death of the Written Word
by Mark Zeltner, Ph.D.
abstract by Samantha Reinhart
Written by a lover of the newspaper, this article responds to the question "Will the Internet drive the newspaper into extinction?" Mark Zeltner decided to ask one of his News Writing classes what they thought about the future of newspapers or, more specifically, what the future of news on paper would be. The students' response was that it was not a question of if the newspaper would disappear, but when.
Zeltner realized that he would have to embrace this new technology, and soon became excited about the possibilities of the new-media. One aspect of the new-media that particularly strikes Zeltner is the ability to use hypertext links to break down the traditional narrative styles. For example, a journalist can tell a story using hyperlinks to provide background information, use audio for impact, and use pictures that have amazing resolution and color to tell a story that words can't. An author can even use video to supplement his written text.
However, Zeltner notes that many critics are appalled at what computer-mediated texts will do to our ability to appreciate traditional narrative strategies and books in general. Critics ague that this technology could not only lead to the death of print media, but to the death of our ability to comprehend this type of narrative.
Zeltner isn't worried about death of print. He argues that the Internet provides a new form of media that will supplement, not kill, the previous technology. He notes that the TV did not put an end to the radio or the movie, as many critics feared. Zeltner says that the medium and how we consume it is not going to change- reading an article on the web is not the same as reading it in a print newspaper or a traditional magazine. Novels still make no sense on the web, and there is no risk of the novel dying out any time soon!
The gist of the article is this: that "there is still a place for the printed newspaper in our society. There will always be an audience for a well-written novel delivered the traditional way--on paper. But the new-media opens an untold number of new methods of reaching and communicating with an audience."
According to Zeltner, there is only one "wonderful and terrible" problem. There are no rules for writing for the new-media and the ones that exist for traditional print media simply don't work. Thus Zeltner steps in and provides the solution to his "terrible" problem. Here they are, folks, pay attention- the top ten rules for writers on the web.
The Ten Rules
1. Just the facts ma'am or keep your writing tight, tight, tight
On the Internet, less is more. Words are precious. Use them sparingly and effectively.
2. Anything over a screenful is wasted or click vs. scroll
How you decide to cut up your information to fit on the screen is imperative. How can you do this in a way that will entice your writers to keep reading?
3. No page is and island or think in modules not chapters
"Digestible chunks." Make sure that each page can stand on its own and teach something to the reader.
4. A picture is worth a couple thousand words or when to embed images and when to just write
Use a picture if it says it better than words can. Don't use pictures that will distract or detract from your main point.
5. Did you hear that? or when a sound is more is more important than words
Use audio when it portrays something better than you can in words.
6. Did you see that? or when a video clip is more important than words
Video clips are small on the screen. Pick wisely and make sure that the small size will not impact the power of the message.
7. Huh, what's this? or when to use descriptions and definitions
Use hyperlinks to define or describe confusing words or concepts.
8. Ever take a trip without a roadmap? or why hypertext links are wonderful, dangerous things
Don't send people away from your page! If you do, make it easy for them to come back!...
9. Want some fries with that or sidebars are an important part of every document
Sidebars are a great way to provide supplemental information. They basically take the place of the footnote.
10. Sometimes you can tell a book by its cover or why content and form are both important
The medium is the message! Good writing simply doesn't do it anymore. You have to make it look pretty and exciting!!!
This does not mean that we don't have to worry about what we write anymore. The written word is as important as ever. "The difference is that we can no longer depend on words alone to carry our messages to the new technically sophisticated audiences of the twenty-first century."
by Mark Zeltner, Ph.D.
abstract by Samantha Reinhart
Written by a lover of the newspaper, this article responds to the question "Will the Internet drive the newspaper into extinction?" Mark Zeltner decided to ask one of his News Writing classes what they thought about the future of newspapers or, more specifically, what the future of news on paper would be. The students' response was that it was not a question of if the newspaper would disappear, but when.
Zeltner realized that he would have to embrace this new technology, and soon became excited about the possibilities of the new-media. One aspect of the new-media that particularly strikes Zeltner is the ability to use hypertext links to break down the traditional narrative styles. For example, a journalist can tell a story using hyperlinks to provide background information, use audio for impact, and use pictures that have amazing resolution and color to tell a story that words can't. An author can even use video to supplement his written text.
However, Zeltner notes that many critics are appalled at what computer-mediated texts will do to our ability to appreciate traditional narrative strategies and books in general. Critics ague that this technology could not only lead to the death of print media, but to the death of our ability to comprehend this type of narrative.
Zeltner isn't worried about death of print. He argues that the Internet provides a new form of media that will supplement, not kill, the previous technology. He notes that the TV did not put an end to the radio or the movie, as many critics feared. Zeltner says that the medium and how we consume it is not going to change- reading an article on the web is not the same as reading it in a print newspaper or a traditional magazine. Novels still make no sense on the web, and there is no risk of the novel dying out any time soon!
The gist of the article is this: that "there is still a place for the printed newspaper in our society. There will always be an audience for a well-written novel delivered the traditional way--on paper. But the new-media opens an untold number of new methods of reaching and communicating with an audience."
According to Zeltner, there is only one "wonderful and terrible" problem. There are no rules for writing for the new-media and the ones that exist for traditional print media simply don't work. Thus Zeltner steps in and provides the solution to his "terrible" problem. Here they are, folks, pay attention- the top ten rules for writers on the web.
The Ten Rules
1. Just the facts ma'am or keep your writing tight, tight, tight
On the Internet, less is more. Words are precious. Use them sparingly and effectively.
2. Anything over a screenful is wasted or click vs. scroll
How you decide to cut up your information to fit on the screen is imperative. How can you do this in a way that will entice your writers to keep reading?
3. No page is and island or think in modules not chapters
"Digestible chunks." Make sure that each page can stand on its own and teach something to the reader.
4. A picture is worth a couple thousand words or when to embed images and when to just write
Use a picture if it says it better than words can. Don't use pictures that will distract or detract from your main point.
5. Did you hear that? or when a sound is more is more important than words
Use audio when it portrays something better than you can in words.
6. Did you see that? or when a video clip is more important than words
Video clips are small on the screen. Pick wisely and make sure that the small size will not impact the power of the message.
7. Huh, what's this? or when to use descriptions and definitions
Use hyperlinks to define or describe confusing words or concepts.
8. Ever take a trip without a roadmap? or why hypertext links are wonderful, dangerous things
Don't send people away from your page! If you do, make it easy for them to come back!...
9. Want some fries with that or sidebars are an important part of every document
Sidebars are a great way to provide supplemental information. They basically take the place of the footnote.
10. Sometimes you can tell a book by its cover or why content and form are both important
The medium is the message! Good writing simply doesn't do it anymore. You have to make it look pretty and exciting!!!
This does not mean that we don't have to worry about what we write anymore. The written word is as important as ever. "The difference is that we can no longer depend on words alone to carry our messages to the new technically sophisticated audiences of the twenty-first century."
Monday, September 17, 2007
Editorial Style
This helpful guide gave tips on how not to overload surfers with information, and how to format information effectively within the context of a website.
Along with text, this piece incorporated a few images with captions, which, though a little blurry, was helpful to get a visual of the concepts being explained.
The key to successful online prose is to write in a way that "is concise and structured for scanning" -- basically making the page skim-friendly. An interesting technique for conveying information in an expedient way is by writing with the model of the inverted pyramid, but with the conclusion at the beginning of the text (144).
Thinning out what, in print documents, might be thick paragraphs of information helps readers read quickly, but the author also notes that one does not want to necessarily "dumb down" the information while making it more skeletal. What I basically envisioned when this was described was Losh's "Digital Rhetoric:Genres, Disciplines, and Trends" (do I use quotes or underlines with that title? :-{ ). What Losh does not seem to do is add the TARGET = "main" to her tags so that a separate window opens, rather that having another window take over the initial window that the site inhabited (149). I always hate when that happens, especially when people send me an e-mail with a link that takes me away from the e-mail I hadn't completed reading yet. Anyway. Instead of taking the audience away from the website, frames should "allow you to supply commentary on material in another site and also maintain navigation links back to your site" (150).
A plethora of links within a certain amount of prose might prove to be a distraction (I'm visualizing now Wikipedia). As the author states, "it's pointless to write a paragraph and then fill it with links to go elsewhere" (150). So frugality of links within prose is encouraged, and a tactic that might encourage this frugality is to "group all minor, illustrative, parenthetic, or footnote links at the bottom of the page" (151).
There are many other points about making an effective site have to do with (of course) design and audience. Web authors are encouraged to be cognizant of tasteful link colors, and eye-catching approaches to headlines and subheadings. They also talk about "thinking globally" when typing in dates, so that you use a format recognizable to all.
Much of the guide was essentially about how to pragmatically apply "flow" to web composition.
This helpful guide gave tips on how not to overload surfers with information, and how to format information effectively within the context of a website.
Along with text, this piece incorporated a few images with captions, which, though a little blurry, was helpful to get a visual of the concepts being explained.
The key to successful online prose is to write in a way that "is concise and structured for scanning" -- basically making the page skim-friendly. An interesting technique for conveying information in an expedient way is by writing with the model of the inverted pyramid, but with the conclusion at the beginning of the text (144).
Thinning out what, in print documents, might be thick paragraphs of information helps readers read quickly, but the author also notes that one does not want to necessarily "dumb down" the information while making it more skeletal. What I basically envisioned when this was described was Losh's "Digital Rhetoric:Genres, Disciplines, and Trends" (do I use quotes or underlines with that title? :-{ ). What Losh does not seem to do is add the TARGET = "main" to her tags so that a separate window opens, rather that having another window take over the initial window that the site inhabited (149). I always hate when that happens, especially when people send me an e-mail with a link that takes me away from the e-mail I hadn't completed reading yet. Anyway. Instead of taking the audience away from the website, frames should "allow you to supply commentary on material in another site and also maintain navigation links back to your site" (150).
A plethora of links within a certain amount of prose might prove to be a distraction (I'm visualizing now Wikipedia). As the author states, "it's pointless to write a paragraph and then fill it with links to go elsewhere" (150). So frugality of links within prose is encouraged, and a tactic that might encourage this frugality is to "group all minor, illustrative, parenthetic, or footnote links at the bottom of the page" (151).
There are many other points about making an effective site have to do with (of course) design and audience. Web authors are encouraged to be cognizant of tasteful link colors, and eye-catching approaches to headlines and subheadings. They also talk about "thinking globally" when typing in dates, so that you use a format recognizable to all.
Much of the guide was essentially about how to pragmatically apply "flow" to web composition.
Ilana Snyder’s “Page to Screen”
This selection is the preface to Snyder’s book Page to Screen: Taking Literacy into the Electronic Era. This book is a collection of essays from a variety of authors that offer different perspectives on the “newness” of digital literacies. The authors in this book begin to consider that the concept newness is a little misleading because most of these technologies aren’t really new—they’re simply an extension of a prior technology. Snyder compiles a list of questions that act as starting points for the conversations taking place in the book:
How new are computer-mediated literacy practices?
Do they signal the dawn of new literacies of do they only re-incarnate old ones?
What is ‘new’ about them?
How do we asses them?
Does their use enhance literacy practices or diminish them?
She continues, “These questions are raised within the broader context of a culture that valorizes, even fetishes, ‘newness’ at the same time as it extols the traditional and the old” (xxx).
Another key issue that this book addresses has to deal with educators and the “newness” of technology—teachers, unlike their students, tend to not be too interested in new technologies. Snyder describes this as a “widening gulf” (xxii). She concludes, “Just because we have remained largely impervious to technological change does not mean that this is how we should continue to respond. Even more important, if we are to begin to bridge the growing gulf between ourselves and our students, we cannot afford to remain ignorant of the characteristics of these new technologies and their complex cultural influences” (xxiii).
Snyder gives brief summaries of what the book discusses, including particular theories of the other contributors. (I won’t run through all of them—I’ll just mention the few that stand out most to me.) In the section of the book that deals with the “spaces of electronic literacies” Gail Hawisher and Cynthia Selfe talk about the social struggles that come with commercialization of technology, including the idea of intellectual territory.
According to Knobel, Lankshear, Honan and Crawford discuss how new technologies can be used for the benefit of second-language learning (similarly how in other decades had different kinds of audio-visual technologies).
Charles Moran and Gail Hawisher examine the difference between postal mail and the new forms of communication that appeared with the new technologies (particularly email). The language used in email tends to fall somewhere between the language used in speech and that of print. They also talk about the issue of access, stating that the email is part of a “gated community” because only 2% of the world’s population are connected to the internet. (It should be kept in mind that this book was published in 1997.)
Snyder includes Burbules discussion of hypertext and hyperreading (which I think is probably the same information from the article of his that we read last week). In the same conversation about hypertext, Snyder includes Michael Joyce’s distinction between hypertext and multimedia—hypertext perhaps acting as an education tool, while multimedia acts more like television (“the vast wasteland”).
Another theme of this book deals with educators’ lack of acceptance of the new technologies. Smith and Curtain “suggest that teachers will encounter professional dilemmas when dealing with their young students and this new era will generate feelings of intellectual incompetence and powerlessness among educators” (xxxii).
Snyder concludes this preface by talking about whether or not these technologies are truly new. In Burbules discussion of hyperreading he suggests that people are actually just using their reading skills in a new way, making hyperreading an extension of reading rather than a whole new skill. In the same regard, email is really just an addition to letter writing—people are adjusting the skills they already have into digital environments. Snyder concludes by describing an Annie Leibovitz picture of Bill Gates where Gates was standing on a seemingly endless highway surrounded by desert (hinting at the information superhighway). Snyder writes, “It seems to me that our responsibility and challenge as educators and researchers it to explore this terrain, whatever its features, to devise the theoretical and practical understandings that will allow ourselves and our students to reconnoiter it wisely” (xxxiv).
COMMENTS:
It feels a bit odd to look back at work this that was done in 1997 because so much has changed since then when it comes to technology. For example, Snyder writes, “history suggests that we should remain somewhat skeptical about how the wiring of our schools might affect pedagogical practices” (xxii-xxiii). It seems to me that we are coming closer and closer to having most classrooms wired, and I would say that I think technology will (or perhaps already does) affect pedagogy. But Snyder also seems to be implying that educators need to jump on the technological band wagon before they get left further behind. Without reading the rest of the book it is hard to say what exactly Snyder believes by putting out these contradicting ideas.
I found this piece difficult to abstract because it briefly discusses the opinions of so many people. I hope I was able to make some sense of it for you guys!
This selection is the preface to Snyder’s book Page to Screen: Taking Literacy into the Electronic Era. This book is a collection of essays from a variety of authors that offer different perspectives on the “newness” of digital literacies. The authors in this book begin to consider that the concept newness is a little misleading because most of these technologies aren’t really new—they’re simply an extension of a prior technology. Snyder compiles a list of questions that act as starting points for the conversations taking place in the book:
How new are computer-mediated literacy practices?
Do they signal the dawn of new literacies of do they only re-incarnate old ones?
What is ‘new’ about them?
How do we asses them?
Does their use enhance literacy practices or diminish them?
She continues, “These questions are raised within the broader context of a culture that valorizes, even fetishes, ‘newness’ at the same time as it extols the traditional and the old” (xxx).
Another key issue that this book addresses has to deal with educators and the “newness” of technology—teachers, unlike their students, tend to not be too interested in new technologies. Snyder describes this as a “widening gulf” (xxii). She concludes, “Just because we have remained largely impervious to technological change does not mean that this is how we should continue to respond. Even more important, if we are to begin to bridge the growing gulf between ourselves and our students, we cannot afford to remain ignorant of the characteristics of these new technologies and their complex cultural influences” (xxiii).
Snyder gives brief summaries of what the book discusses, including particular theories of the other contributors. (I won’t run through all of them—I’ll just mention the few that stand out most to me.) In the section of the book that deals with the “spaces of electronic literacies” Gail Hawisher and Cynthia Selfe talk about the social struggles that come with commercialization of technology, including the idea of intellectual territory.
According to Knobel, Lankshear, Honan and Crawford discuss how new technologies can be used for the benefit of second-language learning (similarly how in other decades had different kinds of audio-visual technologies).
Charles Moran and Gail Hawisher examine the difference between postal mail and the new forms of communication that appeared with the new technologies (particularly email). The language used in email tends to fall somewhere between the language used in speech and that of print. They also talk about the issue of access, stating that the email is part of a “gated community” because only 2% of the world’s population are connected to the internet. (It should be kept in mind that this book was published in 1997.)
Snyder includes Burbules discussion of hypertext and hyperreading (which I think is probably the same information from the article of his that we read last week). In the same conversation about hypertext, Snyder includes Michael Joyce’s distinction between hypertext and multimedia—hypertext perhaps acting as an education tool, while multimedia acts more like television (“the vast wasteland”).
Another theme of this book deals with educators’ lack of acceptance of the new technologies. Smith and Curtain “suggest that teachers will encounter professional dilemmas when dealing with their young students and this new era will generate feelings of intellectual incompetence and powerlessness among educators” (xxxii).
Snyder concludes this preface by talking about whether or not these technologies are truly new. In Burbules discussion of hyperreading he suggests that people are actually just using their reading skills in a new way, making hyperreading an extension of reading rather than a whole new skill. In the same regard, email is really just an addition to letter writing—people are adjusting the skills they already have into digital environments. Snyder concludes by describing an Annie Leibovitz picture of Bill Gates where Gates was standing on a seemingly endless highway surrounded by desert (hinting at the information superhighway). Snyder writes, “It seems to me that our responsibility and challenge as educators and researchers it to explore this terrain, whatever its features, to devise the theoretical and practical understandings that will allow ourselves and our students to reconnoiter it wisely” (xxxiv).
COMMENTS:
It feels a bit odd to look back at work this that was done in 1997 because so much has changed since then when it comes to technology. For example, Snyder writes, “history suggests that we should remain somewhat skeptical about how the wiring of our schools might affect pedagogical practices” (xxii-xxiii). It seems to me that we are coming closer and closer to having most classrooms wired, and I would say that I think technology will (or perhaps already does) affect pedagogy. But Snyder also seems to be implying that educators need to jump on the technological band wagon before they get left further behind. Without reading the rest of the book it is hard to say what exactly Snyder believes by putting out these contradicting ideas.
I found this piece difficult to abstract because it briefly discusses the opinions of so many people. I hope I was able to make some sense of it for you guys!
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
In her article, Christina Haas explores the complex relationship between old and new technologies, hence the title of her discourse, “On the Relationship Between Old and New Technologies.” This intriguing examination applies the theories of Lev Vygotsky (who was “profoundly influenced” by Engel’s work Dialectics of Nature, which postulates “that through labor, humans interact with nature via material tools”) to describe the complex situation of literacy technologies found together in everyday work environments (212). Haas then uses the work of a “Dutch philosopher of technology” named Bijker to interpret her “case studies [to suggest] some other, more complex and more empirically valid ways of viewing the relationship between old and new technologies” (221).
The two presuppositions/views about technological literacies that seemed to most compel Haas to write this article were:
- The replacement model. “…assumes that the old and the new technologies are clearly differential from one another, both theoretically, and in practice” (210). And that new technologies make “obsolete’ the old.
- The straightforward model. “…a new is better view in which new technologies are more advanced and therefore more efficient, more powerful, or both” (210).
The two Vygotskyian tools that she uses to create her framework for examining the use of old and new technologies are the “mediational means” and the historical genetic method. The term “genetic” basically entails a look at the history, the origins of technology, and of the cultural embrace/use of the technology. “Mediational means” refers to looking at literacy “as a distinct phenomenon, but as always imbedded in larger human practices” (211). In other words, it is looking at literacy as a sub-practice inherent and integral to larger goals of humanity.
In addition to these concepts, the Vygoskian approach suggests that a) “multiple technologies for literacy exist, b) their history-of-use is complex and overlapping and c) that technology’s uses are tied intrinsically to other human activities” (213).
Making the abstract concrete, Haas visits three work sites to evaluate how the different modes literacy technologies are being put into practice. The first site observed is the workplace of a city engineer who works for a small town in Ohio. He contract with a particular agency to map and maintain the water plans of the city. This case study basically notes that graphics programs, as well as phone, faxes, and scribbled notes are used in this work. Haas highlights the fact that new and old technologies work effectively together towards a goal. Each technology is important in supporting the other. (Thus the mediational means is at work, the replacement model is disproved, and a) and c) of the Vygoskian hypotheses are demonstrated.
There are two more truly interesting case studies, but honestly, I’m looking at the clock and I need to start wrapping this up. I’ll do an overview. One case study is in another city office of the same town mentioned above, and this office, overall is reluctant to implement e-mail – here the historic-genetic concept is highlighted, as this reluctance is based on the notion that the old methods are just as useful as the new, and the “old villagers” might be unhappy about the whole email thing.
The third is a look at an abortion clinic’s literacy technologies, and how the old paper-and-pen method is imperative to their processes and record-keeping there. Meanwhile an up to date, computer-designed pamphlet about the development of the baby in the womb, and processes that need to happen if an abortion is not carried out, is found to be secondary to the rest of the paper work that needs to be done. I think the “mediational means” is again brought up.
After setting up this framework, Haas uses Bijker’s theories to dig a little deeper, and bring to surface the other complexities of intermingling old and new technologies. These concepts, amalgamated with Haas’s observations are as follows: Non-linearity in Technological Development and Change, The Role of Contingency and Constraint in the Use of Literacy Technologies, and Interpretive Flexibility of Technologies – as well as Power as a Rhetorical Concept in Technological Development and Use.
To conclude, I think Haas’s rational for combining the Vygoskian and Bijkerian approaches is interesting, and important to touch on. Haas states that Bijker’s work Of Bicycles, Bakelite, and Bulbs, “can be seen as an extended application of Vygotsky’s historical genetic method,” so, she thought it logical to combine the two in this study as they tend to go hand in hand, and as they successfully eradicate the simplistic notions that she described at the beginning of her article (226).
Phew. This was a great article. I’m not sure if I’m supposed to say that in an abstract. Probably not, as it’s not a review, but, really, dig deep into this one, it is fascinating.
The two presuppositions/views about technological literacies that seemed to most compel Haas to write this article were:
- The replacement model. “…assumes that the old and the new technologies are clearly differential from one another, both theoretically, and in practice” (210). And that new technologies make “obsolete’ the old.
- The straightforward model. “…a new is better view in which new technologies are more advanced and therefore more efficient, more powerful, or both” (210).
The two Vygotskyian tools that she uses to create her framework for examining the use of old and new technologies are the “mediational means” and the historical genetic method. The term “genetic” basically entails a look at the history, the origins of technology, and of the cultural embrace/use of the technology. “Mediational means” refers to looking at literacy “as a distinct phenomenon, but as always imbedded in larger human practices” (211). In other words, it is looking at literacy as a sub-practice inherent and integral to larger goals of humanity.
In addition to these concepts, the Vygoskian approach suggests that a) “multiple technologies for literacy exist, b) their history-of-use is complex and overlapping and c) that technology’s uses are tied intrinsically to other human activities” (213).
Making the abstract concrete, Haas visits three work sites to evaluate how the different modes literacy technologies are being put into practice. The first site observed is the workplace of a city engineer who works for a small town in Ohio. He contract with a particular agency to map and maintain the water plans of the city. This case study basically notes that graphics programs, as well as phone, faxes, and scribbled notes are used in this work. Haas highlights the fact that new and old technologies work effectively together towards a goal. Each technology is important in supporting the other. (Thus the mediational means is at work, the replacement model is disproved, and a) and c) of the Vygoskian hypotheses are demonstrated.
There are two more truly interesting case studies, but honestly, I’m looking at the clock and I need to start wrapping this up. I’ll do an overview. One case study is in another city office of the same town mentioned above, and this office, overall is reluctant to implement e-mail – here the historic-genetic concept is highlighted, as this reluctance is based on the notion that the old methods are just as useful as the new, and the “old villagers” might be unhappy about the whole email thing.
The third is a look at an abortion clinic’s literacy technologies, and how the old paper-and-pen method is imperative to their processes and record-keeping there. Meanwhile an up to date, computer-designed pamphlet about the development of the baby in the womb, and processes that need to happen if an abortion is not carried out, is found to be secondary to the rest of the paper work that needs to be done. I think the “mediational means” is again brought up.
After setting up this framework, Haas uses Bijker’s theories to dig a little deeper, and bring to surface the other complexities of intermingling old and new technologies. These concepts, amalgamated with Haas’s observations are as follows: Non-linearity in Technological Development and Change, The Role of Contingency and Constraint in the Use of Literacy Technologies, and Interpretive Flexibility of Technologies – as well as Power as a Rhetorical Concept in Technological Development and Use.
To conclude, I think Haas’s rational for combining the Vygoskian and Bijkerian approaches is interesting, and important to touch on. Haas states that Bijker’s work Of Bicycles, Bakelite, and Bulbs, “can be seen as an extended application of Vygotsky’s historical genetic method,” so, she thought it logical to combine the two in this study as they tend to go hand in hand, and as they successfully eradicate the simplistic notions that she described at the beginning of her article (226).
Phew. This was a great article. I’m not sure if I’m supposed to say that in an abstract. Probably not, as it’s not a review, but, really, dig deep into this one, it is fascinating.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Madeleine Sorapure, Pamela Inglesby, and George Yatchisin
“Web Literacy: Challenges and Opportunities for Research in a New Medium”
Abstract by Samantha Reinhart Mora
This article discusses an important and interesting question– how do we go about teaching our students to do research on the complicated medium that is the Internet? Teachers today cannot ignore the web as a powerful resource for student researchers. However, students must be taught how to assess the complex variety of digital rhetorical situations and how to navigate the medium they are presented in. This helps students determine the reliability of the website as well as to extend important literacy skills, such as associative logic, and understanding visual rhetoric and interactivity. We need to guide students to become discerning readers of the internet who are able to discern the dangers while reaping the benefits of the web. The two major challenges posed by the Web as an information resource– diverse and unfiltered content and its hypermedia format- offer opportunities for students to develop their critical thinking and research skills.
There are some guides that are useful to some extent when evaluating Web sites. Based on librarian and teacher suggestions, these guides direct the student to assess the author and the publisher of the material. These criteria can be useful when, say, deciding which movie reviews are academic enough to include as sources. However, sometimes this method can cause students to reject potentially valuable material because the source seems unreliable when judged by traditional research methods.
Some research librarians, recognizing this, say that new techniques need to be developed because of (among other things) the difficulty of in identifying authors, the lack of peer review, and the unclear use of dates. There are also new genres of research to be considered: among them, personal home pages and infommerical Web sites.
Personal home pages offer fascinating first-person views that are potentially rich research sources, though students need to understand the difference between primary and secondary sources and how to evaluate the author for validity.
Infomercial sites pose an interesting problem, because although they are often commercial sites, their purpose is sometimes also to educate. Students must learn to evaluate the site on its own merits, conduct further research into the credentials of the author (sometimes as easy as Googling the author’s name) and to seek sources that make an opposing argument to balance informations sources. This creates some new kinds of work for the researcher, but also teaches solid critical and intellectual skills necessary for good research writing.
Students must learn another skill to determine validity of a site- how to read visual elements. These elements can complement, complicate, or contradict the message conveyed by the text.
“Websites teach us how they want to be read, in large part through visual, graphic, and layout elements, and we must be aware of that teaching process as we read.” Images can convey possible bias, while presenting a false objectivity on websites. Students need to be made aware how visual information can be manipulated.
Links can also provide valuable clues about the value of information on a site. An important aspect of evaluation is assessing the sources to which an author refers. Students must evaluate the number of links or the lack thereof, also understanding that often times academics are light on the links but heavy on references. Another issue with links deals with a source’s borders. We can look to George Landow’s rules for how a site must properly treat its visitors, which basically states that a site should always let a reader know where they are on the web… (If a link leads away from the site, the reader should know, and feel at home in the new document after using a link.) Links can be a means for stimulating and engaging readers, and can compel students to attend to structure and organizations.
Another facet to reflect upon is the interactivity of a Web site, as this can help indicate the quality, accuracy, bias, and the overall value of the information it presents. What kind of material is the website asking from the student, and how what does this show us about the reliability of the Web site? Students must learn to read interactive elements as clues in determining a Web site’s rhetorical mode and purpose.
In conclusion, although we should not forget that the Internet is not an ideologically neutral territory, it is important for students to be able to be critical users of the Internet– this can enhance student’ research and writing skills, and someday can even improve the
Web itself, as today’s researchers become tomorrow’s publishers.
Comments
I agree with the authors who pose that learning how to assess a website’s validity teaches the student valuable critical thinking skills. I would go even further and say that it is our duty as writing and reading teachers to teach students how to assess a website on many levels. As digital literacies continue to proliferate, we owe it to our students to teach them this new, intricate literacy. As the article concludes, the students today are the publishers of tomorrow, so by teaching our students these crucial literacies, we are working to make the Internet a better place!
“Web Literacy: Challenges and Opportunities for Research in a New Medium”
Abstract by Samantha Reinhart Mora
This article discusses an important and interesting question– how do we go about teaching our students to do research on the complicated medium that is the Internet? Teachers today cannot ignore the web as a powerful resource for student researchers. However, students must be taught how to assess the complex variety of digital rhetorical situations and how to navigate the medium they are presented in. This helps students determine the reliability of the website as well as to extend important literacy skills, such as associative logic, and understanding visual rhetoric and interactivity. We need to guide students to become discerning readers of the internet who are able to discern the dangers while reaping the benefits of the web. The two major challenges posed by the Web as an information resource– diverse and unfiltered content and its hypermedia format- offer opportunities for students to develop their critical thinking and research skills.
There are some guides that are useful to some extent when evaluating Web sites. Based on librarian and teacher suggestions, these guides direct the student to assess the author and the publisher of the material. These criteria can be useful when, say, deciding which movie reviews are academic enough to include as sources. However, sometimes this method can cause students to reject potentially valuable material because the source seems unreliable when judged by traditional research methods.
Some research librarians, recognizing this, say that new techniques need to be developed because of (among other things) the difficulty of in identifying authors, the lack of peer review, and the unclear use of dates. There are also new genres of research to be considered: among them, personal home pages and infommerical Web sites.
Personal home pages offer fascinating first-person views that are potentially rich research sources, though students need to understand the difference between primary and secondary sources and how to evaluate the author for validity.
Infomercial sites pose an interesting problem, because although they are often commercial sites, their purpose is sometimes also to educate. Students must learn to evaluate the site on its own merits, conduct further research into the credentials of the author (sometimes as easy as Googling the author’s name) and to seek sources that make an opposing argument to balance informations sources. This creates some new kinds of work for the researcher, but also teaches solid critical and intellectual skills necessary for good research writing.
Students must learn another skill to determine validity of a site- how to read visual elements. These elements can complement, complicate, or contradict the message conveyed by the text.
“Websites teach us how they want to be read, in large part through visual, graphic, and layout elements, and we must be aware of that teaching process as we read.” Images can convey possible bias, while presenting a false objectivity on websites. Students need to be made aware how visual information can be manipulated.
Links can also provide valuable clues about the value of information on a site. An important aspect of evaluation is assessing the sources to which an author refers. Students must evaluate the number of links or the lack thereof, also understanding that often times academics are light on the links but heavy on references. Another issue with links deals with a source’s borders. We can look to George Landow’s rules for how a site must properly treat its visitors, which basically states that a site should always let a reader know where they are on the web… (If a link leads away from the site, the reader should know, and feel at home in the new document after using a link.) Links can be a means for stimulating and engaging readers, and can compel students to attend to structure and organizations.
Another facet to reflect upon is the interactivity of a Web site, as this can help indicate the quality, accuracy, bias, and the overall value of the information it presents. What kind of material is the website asking from the student, and how what does this show us about the reliability of the Web site? Students must learn to read interactive elements as clues in determining a Web site’s rhetorical mode and purpose.
In conclusion, although we should not forget that the Internet is not an ideologically neutral territory, it is important for students to be able to be critical users of the Internet– this can enhance student’ research and writing skills, and someday can even improve the
Web itself, as today’s researchers become tomorrow’s publishers.
Comments
I agree with the authors who pose that learning how to assess a website’s validity teaches the student valuable critical thinking skills. I would go even further and say that it is our duty as writing and reading teachers to teach students how to assess a website on many levels. As digital literacies continue to proliferate, we owe it to our students to teach them this new, intricate literacy. As the article concludes, the students today are the publishers of tomorrow, so by teaching our students these crucial literacies, we are working to make the Internet a better place!
Abstract of Nicholas Burbules’s “Rhetoric of the Web: Hypertexting and Critical Literacy.”
by Mike Peterson
Description of Article
Burbules starts his article by posing what he calls the perennial question: is reading hypertext something new, or is it the same as reading traditional texts? Throughout his article, he answers this by saying they are the same, yet different—while certain skills apply to both functions, hypertext comes with its own set of challenges and idiosyncrasies. One such unique trait of hypertext is the link.
The hyperlink can be compared loosely to citations within traditional texts: they point us to someplace else where additional information might be found. The difference, of course, is that hyperlinks are quick and easy: a couple of clicks and you’re there—no time and money-consuming ventures of finding or buying or photocopying books and articles.
But these links shouldn’t be uncritically viewed as mere shortcuts. Readers need to remember that links don’t all have the same semic relationships, links are a man-made construction, and links are not simple associations of two givens.
Another trait of hypertext is that it doesn’t have to follow the Outline and Syllogism formula of traditional texts—through hyperlinks, it can take advantage of other rhetorical possibilities such as Bricolage and Juxtaposition.
But hypertext also comes with disadvantages and therefore ushers a greater need for readers to develop a more reflective and critical approach to the way they read. First, there is the problem of a surfeit of information, which increases a reader’s need to make rapid judgments. This leads to the writer’s assumption that a reader’s attention must be seized and held quickly. The second problem that there is a “blur of distinctions of relative credibility.” And the third problem is a lack of distinction between computer use as an intellectual tool and that of a mere plaything (which results in a diminished capacity to concentrate on less-stimulating projects).
Burbules goes on to list a few tropes, which he equates with the different types of hyperlinks: metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, hyperbole, antistatis, identity, sequence and cause-and-effect, and catachresis. He does this because he wants “links to be seen as rhetorical moves that can be evaluated and questions for their relevance.”
Burbules wants readers to move away from the “simple consumer orientation” of the web. If we understand the limits and possibilities of the web, its rhetorical conventions, and learn to be critical readers of hyperlinks, the web can go from being a “frightening medium of manipulation and distortion” to an “opportunity for discovery and synthesis.”
Comments and Questions
I’m not a hundred-percent convinced that such a thorough understanding of hyperlinks is needed to be a critical reader of hypertext. It would take a master rhetorician to determine the different tropes that each link reflects. What I think is important, though, is to understand that links are man-made creations, and that not every link is created equally. There are a lot of things vying for our attention on the Internet, and I agree with Burbules that we shouldn’t be uncritical consumers of everything put before us. Do you think Burbules is splitting hairs over the tropes?
I drew a lot of good points from this article that I will use in teaching my E102 class. Burbules discusses the importance of recognizing the difference between credibility and glitter—while flashy and catchy sites are appealing, they are often nothing more than fluff void of content. That isn’t to say credibility lacks flashiness—a reputable site can still have ad banners, video and audio links, but those links will more likely be for content rather than spectacle—no linking for linking’s sake.
This article was written ten years ago. Burbules predicts that “the aura of credibility of any particular hypertext on the Web sill be diminished, since there will almost certainly be more garbage than work of quality in this Brave New Self-Publishing World.” I say, “Welcome to 2007!”
I watched a news program recently about the dangers of multi-tasking. The program concluded that multitasking isn’t always a good thing: it results in a lot of surface-level action with little retention or deep understanding. In other words, you can carry on four conversations at once via e-mail, telephone, text-messaging, and face-to-face interaction, but only so much of that information can be processed. I thought of that as I read this article. As we are plagued with an increasing plethora of information on the Internet, how are we allocating our attention? Do we read just bits and pieces of articles, gloss over summaries and abstracts, and watch/listen to decontextualized media clips? Is this causing a reduction in our deeper comprehension of the world? Is wisdom being replaced with a cluttered-head of random tidbits? In other words, if I have a half hour to read the news, am I better off skimming a couple dozen articles and watching small clips hear and there, or would I be better off reading one or two “complete” articles?
by Mike Peterson
Description of Article
Burbules starts his article by posing what he calls the perennial question: is reading hypertext something new, or is it the same as reading traditional texts? Throughout his article, he answers this by saying they are the same, yet different—while certain skills apply to both functions, hypertext comes with its own set of challenges and idiosyncrasies. One such unique trait of hypertext is the link.
The hyperlink can be compared loosely to citations within traditional texts: they point us to someplace else where additional information might be found. The difference, of course, is that hyperlinks are quick and easy: a couple of clicks and you’re there—no time and money-consuming ventures of finding or buying or photocopying books and articles.
But these links shouldn’t be uncritically viewed as mere shortcuts. Readers need to remember that links don’t all have the same semic relationships, links are a man-made construction, and links are not simple associations of two givens.
Another trait of hypertext is that it doesn’t have to follow the Outline and Syllogism formula of traditional texts—through hyperlinks, it can take advantage of other rhetorical possibilities such as Bricolage and Juxtaposition.
But hypertext also comes with disadvantages and therefore ushers a greater need for readers to develop a more reflective and critical approach to the way they read. First, there is the problem of a surfeit of information, which increases a reader’s need to make rapid judgments. This leads to the writer’s assumption that a reader’s attention must be seized and held quickly. The second problem that there is a “blur of distinctions of relative credibility.” And the third problem is a lack of distinction between computer use as an intellectual tool and that of a mere plaything (which results in a diminished capacity to concentrate on less-stimulating projects).
Burbules goes on to list a few tropes, which he equates with the different types of hyperlinks: metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, hyperbole, antistatis, identity, sequence and cause-and-effect, and catachresis. He does this because he wants “links to be seen as rhetorical moves that can be evaluated and questions for their relevance.”
Burbules wants readers to move away from the “simple consumer orientation” of the web. If we understand the limits and possibilities of the web, its rhetorical conventions, and learn to be critical readers of hyperlinks, the web can go from being a “frightening medium of manipulation and distortion” to an “opportunity for discovery and synthesis.”
Comments and Questions
I’m not a hundred-percent convinced that such a thorough understanding of hyperlinks is needed to be a critical reader of hypertext. It would take a master rhetorician to determine the different tropes that each link reflects. What I think is important, though, is to understand that links are man-made creations, and that not every link is created equally. There are a lot of things vying for our attention on the Internet, and I agree with Burbules that we shouldn’t be uncritical consumers of everything put before us. Do you think Burbules is splitting hairs over the tropes?
I drew a lot of good points from this article that I will use in teaching my E102 class. Burbules discusses the importance of recognizing the difference between credibility and glitter—while flashy and catchy sites are appealing, they are often nothing more than fluff void of content. That isn’t to say credibility lacks flashiness—a reputable site can still have ad banners, video and audio links, but those links will more likely be for content rather than spectacle—no linking for linking’s sake.
This article was written ten years ago. Burbules predicts that “the aura of credibility of any particular hypertext on the Web sill be diminished, since there will almost certainly be more garbage than work of quality in this Brave New Self-Publishing World.” I say, “Welcome to 2007!”
I watched a news program recently about the dangers of multi-tasking. The program concluded that multitasking isn’t always a good thing: it results in a lot of surface-level action with little retention or deep understanding. In other words, you can carry on four conversations at once via e-mail, telephone, text-messaging, and face-to-face interaction, but only so much of that information can be processed. I thought of that as I read this article. As we are plagued with an increasing plethora of information on the Internet, how are we allocating our attention? Do we read just bits and pieces of articles, gloss over summaries and abstracts, and watch/listen to decontextualized media clips? Is this causing a reduction in our deeper comprehension of the world? Is wisdom being replaced with a cluttered-head of random tidbits? In other words, if I have a half hour to read the news, am I better off skimming a couple dozen articles and watching small clips hear and there, or would I be better off reading one or two “complete” articles?
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Abstract: Lester Faigley’s “Literacy After the Revolution”
This article was an address that Faigley made as the Chair of CCCC. He starts the address by reminiscing about the addresses of the prior years, and talks about the circumstances that allowed him, as well as everyone else in the profession, to become a member of the rhet/comp field. He explains how he, by chance, became a writing teacher—a member of the ugly stepchild of the English field.
Past addresses of the conferences had been given by people who had been heavily influenced by teaching basic writing. As teachers of basic writing, these people were aware of the power that institutions (like universities) hold that maintain, or even contribute to, social divisions. These teachers, along with teachers like Faigley, used anti-authoritarian ways of teaching writing to students: literacy as a means to participate in social and political avenues.
Faigley notes that the growth of the rhet/comp field is not without problems; the working conditions for many writing teachers still had not improved. This leads Faigley to the main point of his address—there are two forces that are changing what the people of rhet/comp do in their field: the digital revolution and the revolution of the rich. He states, “These revolutions have been described as having very different impacts—the digital revolution as expanding access and the revolution of the rich as contracting it—but we may eventually come to see them as different aspects of an even larger scale” (32).
The revolution of the rich largely has to do with the ability of the rich to control the middle/low class work force and the decline of publicly supported education. Essentially, to increase profits the powers that be found that they needed to find ways to be more flexible with their workers. (I read this to mean that they needed to find a better way to pay more people less money for more work.) This equaled many people losing their jobs. This ultimately affects universities as well:
More and more, colleges and universities are being ordered to make sweeping changes by politicians who are unfamiliar with higher education. They see colleges and universities as bloated and want to “re-engineer” higher education on the market-driven principles of “downsizing” by imposing heavier workloads, getting rid of tenure, and converting full-time jobs into “permanent temp” positions. (34)
Part-time faculty in 1991 became 35% from 22% in 1970. The majority of these positions are held by women.
The digital revolution also has had a great effect on the composition field. Faigley runs through the history of the internet, much like we read last week—as a Cold War project, the ARPANET, and eventual transition of use from military to personal. Faigley states that it is important to understand the internet’s history “before we pronounce it good or bad for our discipline” (36). (It’s important to keep in mind here that this was written in 1997.) Many students were already using the internet in the social and political ways that Faigley described early in the essay. However, Faigley also hits on one topic we already covered last week—issues of access. He states, “Even within the United States, Internet users are far from being equally distributed across the population” (39). This, of course, links back to what Faigley was describing at the revolution of the rich. The rich have access, others do not.
Faigley concludes his address by coming back to talking about the rhet/comp field. He writes, “In a culture that is increasingly cynical about the belief that schools should offer equal opportunity to education, we have remained steadfast to the goal of literacy for equality,” and “we can be confident that the need for what we teach will only increase” (41). Quoting from Berlin, Faigley reminds us that all writing teachers need to be aware of the political and economic contexts in which we teach.
This article was an address that Faigley made as the Chair of CCCC. He starts the address by reminiscing about the addresses of the prior years, and talks about the circumstances that allowed him, as well as everyone else in the profession, to become a member of the rhet/comp field. He explains how he, by chance, became a writing teacher—a member of the ugly stepchild of the English field.
Past addresses of the conferences had been given by people who had been heavily influenced by teaching basic writing. As teachers of basic writing, these people were aware of the power that institutions (like universities) hold that maintain, or even contribute to, social divisions. These teachers, along with teachers like Faigley, used anti-authoritarian ways of teaching writing to students: literacy as a means to participate in social and political avenues.
Faigley notes that the growth of the rhet/comp field is not without problems; the working conditions for many writing teachers still had not improved. This leads Faigley to the main point of his address—there are two forces that are changing what the people of rhet/comp do in their field: the digital revolution and the revolution of the rich. He states, “These revolutions have been described as having very different impacts—the digital revolution as expanding access and the revolution of the rich as contracting it—but we may eventually come to see them as different aspects of an even larger scale” (32).
The revolution of the rich largely has to do with the ability of the rich to control the middle/low class work force and the decline of publicly supported education. Essentially, to increase profits the powers that be found that they needed to find ways to be more flexible with their workers. (I read this to mean that they needed to find a better way to pay more people less money for more work.) This equaled many people losing their jobs. This ultimately affects universities as well:
More and more, colleges and universities are being ordered to make sweeping changes by politicians who are unfamiliar with higher education. They see colleges and universities as bloated and want to “re-engineer” higher education on the market-driven principles of “downsizing” by imposing heavier workloads, getting rid of tenure, and converting full-time jobs into “permanent temp” positions. (34)
Part-time faculty in 1991 became 35% from 22% in 1970. The majority of these positions are held by women.
The digital revolution also has had a great effect on the composition field. Faigley runs through the history of the internet, much like we read last week—as a Cold War project, the ARPANET, and eventual transition of use from military to personal. Faigley states that it is important to understand the internet’s history “before we pronounce it good or bad for our discipline” (36). (It’s important to keep in mind here that this was written in 1997.) Many students were already using the internet in the social and political ways that Faigley described early in the essay. However, Faigley also hits on one topic we already covered last week—issues of access. He states, “Even within the United States, Internet users are far from being equally distributed across the population” (39). This, of course, links back to what Faigley was describing at the revolution of the rich. The rich have access, others do not.
Faigley concludes his address by coming back to talking about the rhet/comp field. He writes, “In a culture that is increasingly cynical about the belief that schools should offer equal opportunity to education, we have remained steadfast to the goal of literacy for equality,” and “we can be confident that the need for what we teach will only increase” (41). Quoting from Berlin, Faigley reminds us that all writing teachers need to be aware of the political and economic contexts in which we teach.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
These are the links to the music I'm part of. If any of you want any music for any of your projects I'm very open to doing some. Points End is my personal music. I do all the scoring, I play all the parts, do the recording mastering all that stuff.
A Rotterdam November is the band I'm part of that I play lead guitar and keyboard for.
http://www.myspace.com/pointsend
http://www.myspace.com/arotterdamnovember
A Rotterdam November is the band I'm part of that I play lead guitar and keyboard for.
http://www.myspace.com/pointsend
http://www.myspace.com/arotterdamnovember
A technology that not everybody knows about is the effect processors people us in todays modern music. There are two routes when going on the quest for perfect tone. I chose the Tonelab SE by VOX to get alot of the tones and sounds that I wanted. Though expensive it takes the place of an entire pedal board-
Though at times the analog sound can be better from a pedal board like this. The cost is outrageous. The link posted has a price probably equivalent to around 3500 dollars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)