changing role + teacher/scholar

*Due to amount of information and range of articles / this post is episodic
 

New media scholarship vs. scholarship about new media

The Knowledges Foundation and the Institute for the Future’s “Map of Future Forces Affecting Education” is a great case study for discussion of “new media scholarship” vs. “scholarship about new media” as presented by Ball. In “Show and not tell: The value of new media scholarship” Ball writes,

Composition and new media scholars write about how readers can make meaning from images, typefaces, videos, animations, and sounds…but most scholars don’t compose with these media. It is evident from the scholarship available that compositionists are interested in new media. Yet, they do not seem to value creating new media texts for scholarly publications to explore the multimodal capabilities of new technologies. The linear tradition of composition scholars’ publications about new media techniques causes me to suggest that this type of scholarship should not be called new media scholarship but should, more accurately, be labeled scholarship about new media.

This statement has relevance not only for compositionists but for communication scholars and especially our program. We’ve discussed in other Communication, Rhetoric & Digital Media classes how people often think that we are experts at creating digital media when they hear the title of our program and we often disappoint when we reveal that’s not necessarily the case. Furthermore, just like Ball discusses most of us write in a linear fashion and don’t compose our research via new media. However, I am still on the fence about whether delivering research results through new media methods is such a desirable thing. Here is where the “map of future forces” delivers a good example. Though the map is filled with interesting information, maybe more than a typical research article, it is very frustrating to read. As a person who likes to see authors present information spatially I thought that I would really enjoy the map but my first instinct was to stretch it out so I could see all the relationships and the overall picture. This map did not allow a full view but forced the reader to focus on a specific section. Argh! I couldn’t figure out if there were more problems below or to the right until I had clicked on something else. Also, when a box was clicked on in order to read the corresponding text, the box would shift up or down making it difficult to follow once you had begun to read. Graphically, the map seemed very sophisticated but really it was too much of a reflective cognitive exercise than an experiential cognitive exercise–what most maps try to achieve. In this instance, a nice linear argument, outline or set of bullet points may have made the information easier to digest. So – maybe the reason scholars don’t seem to value creating new media texts for scholarly publications is not due to lack of creativity but because people are used to reading texts a certain way and a linear format makes the task easier for the reader. Notice that most popular new media texts do not have the detail or depth of a typical research article and so the content fits more easily with a hyperactive text.

Even so, I do think it is important for CRDM scholars to be knowledgeable of basic practices for creating new media texts so that they could partake in and evaluate the composition of new media texts–maybe even a focus in one specific type of digital media would be more manageable – i.e. graphic design, film, podcasts, etc. The map of future forces could have been a lot more user friendly with the input of someone with usability expertise and ethnographic observation.

Other thoughts on future forces

“The human herd”

“With the population density increasing dramatically, environmental crises looming, and a more interconnected global society that buffers population less, there are increasing signs that the human herd is not healthy. What role might education play in addressing health problems?“

Yowza! This is one of the many problems that I personally find as an educator overwhelming. But how could I not with the way this problem is summarized. Somehow when I think of the “human herd” not “being healthy” my first thought is not pedagogy but paralysis. How can we think of solutions with these devastating problems looming? I think this type of rhetoric is not the way to approach these  dilemmas with students but with an outlook of hope (even if there isn’t any). An issue is a lot easier to tackle if students can envision some progress. 

“From physical versus digital to seamlessly physical and digital”

“The end of distinction between cyberspace and real space. What opportunities do newly animated, responsive environments and immersive media present to urban schools and communities?
I think it’s interesting that this statement began with an equally dramatic statement as the “human herd” but then ended with an optimistic question about opportunities. Couldn’t there be an equally devastating question about what detriment the end of this distinction will mean to urban schools and communities? 

The job search

Kimmea Hea (2004) points out the need for some “faculty (perhaps those determining tenure and initiating reviews) to understand the work of computer compositionists as more than practical technological implementation or skill development.” Hea says that even though computer compositionists are often designated a “hot commodity” that they are also misinterpreted as being primarily skills based. Here again this relates back to the issue of “scholarship about new media”. Really the ideal job candidate appears to be a person who studies new media but can also compose well in new media. Again, something our program should consider since Hea also point out that “It is important for graduate students wanting a career in computers and composition to know that they might have to advocate for their own work and careers in our field” and that “he more we understand the range of work within our field, the better able we will be to engage that work and one another”. That does seem to be the strength of the CRDM program the possibility of filling a range of different roles (also appears to be the case with the current job candidates from what I’ve heard about the jobs they’ve been applying for). 

CCCC Position Statement

“Promotion and Tenure Guidelines for Work with Technology” / Work with technology is very time-consuming. People who work with technology in the classroom must spend a portion of their time learning and teaching new software to students and possibly colleagues”
I posted this quote because we come back to it almost every class and here it is distinctly acknowledged. When planning course assignment I think we remember how time consuming technology can be but I think we dismiss sometimes the time it takes to compose in many forms of new media when it comes to scholarship.

technology + identity

Individuals & embodiment
Related to this week’s examination of identity and technology, themes such as: “considering individuals as individuals” (Taylor, p. 226) and “virtual world as embodied place” pervaded much of the reading. On the one hand the articles stressed the need to remember that students do not fit neatly into categories while on the other hand we all have the connection to our bodies and our “humanness” in common. 

Taylor’s discussion of body language in a networked classroom is so interesting because the lack of physical presence in online interaction is what we begin to miss. “Because a teacher cannot read minds and because students are more often silent than vocal when there is a problem, the ability to read faces, postures, tones and gestures can help one teach effectively” (p. 224). Here though, a student’s silence during a problem may be more likely in a face to face situation than online. So yes, the facial expressions are beneficial face-to-face but maybe students would feel better about approaching a professor without having to see the professor’s reaction (sometimes a confused or frustrated look from a professor can be really disheartening to an unsure student). On a different topic, Taylor notes that our virtual spaces are metaphors that strive to re-create an online body or material existence similar to our offline existence. Traditionally in the western philosophical tradition we try to separate our thoughts/mind/souls from our body but then when given a chance to experience a world online (like MMORGs) we still experience it through a digital “body” or avatar (at least in the more sophisticated virtual worlds)–we are still contained and by choice. 

My relationship to much of the reading this week exists primarily through my experiences in DELTA (Distance Education & Learning Technology Applications). Really there hasn’t been too much overlap between the workshops & seminars I took in DELTA and the discussions we’ve had in 704. However, the Dunn & Dunn De Mers (2002) “Embracing Universal Design… in Web Space” and DELTA’s “508 Accessibility” workshop, covered a lot of the same material – the importance of making webpages accessible to those with disabilities and some of the most common ways to go about doing so. For anyone who is not familiar with the US Rehabilitation Act guidelines, this is one DELTA course I would suggest taking. Some of the most interesting tools they introduced us to were sites that allowed you to hear what a web page would sound like if a screen reader like JAWS were used to render the page:

Accessibile IT @ NC State
http://ncsu.edu/it/access/webaccess/bestpract.php

WAVE: a free web accessibility evaluation tool (this is actually kind of fun to test your webpages with)
http://wave.webaim.org/

Audio example of screen reader
http://www.websavvy-access.org/resources/formexample.php

Thoughts on “Social Networking in Plain English” & Bronwyn Williams
I think one of the things we often forget to acknowledge is that a lot of colleagues and people who are in position to connect us to jobs still may not use social networking sites. Also, if everyone does eventually use social networking sites to make connections, how much of an endorsement is that connection if the connecting thread has many many nodes of separation? Also, I’m not sure if I’m convinced by Williams (2008) argument that we need to fully understand how our students use the social networking genres to teach in the classroom. It seems that the tendency would be to try and get them to change how they are using the medium – like Williams’ example with the “about me” section. I could definitely see myself suggesting, “hey as a class activity let’s try to write something really revealing and interesting about yourselves for the ‘about me’ section of your MySpace page”. This seems like I would try to fully understand how they use the social networking site in order to then convince them to change.

literacy + access

Lo-Fi Manifesto
Did the tone of Karl Stolley’s “Lo-Fi Manifesto” remind anyone else of the old “Nick Burns your company’s computer guy” sketch on SNL?

[Except insulting the high-tech instead of the "luddites"]. For instance, his thoughts on WYSIWYG software: “As if you the producer were the only one who mattered” and “it is lunacy to assume what the producer sees is what everyone, indeed anyone, else sees”. Woops, was what I was thinking? How wrong I was to enjoy this kind of software. But I checked to see how the websites looked in multiple formats? Dreamweaver provides possibilities for testing in a variety of browsers, isn’t that helpful and audience friendly? WRONG! MOVE.

I guess I’m most confused by his definition of “lossless” (“neither degrades nor becomes trapped in the production itself”). People use a variety of different softwares for different reasons and converting to lo-fi may easily result in loss. I looked at the suggested S5 alternative to PowerPoint and there are definitely some losses for those who have to use one of the templates and don’t have time to relearn the web-based software and design their own template. Also, somewhat surprising, the design of the S5 templates still have the same very unattractive PowerPoint visual characteristics. Stolley does discuss graphic designers’ attraction to Flash because of the font-embedding capabilities. I’ve heard graphic designers complain about Flash and its visceral nature but even then the capabilities outweigh the loss of using a different type of software because it allows for the “principals” they think most important to their project.

I agree that softwares should not signify entire digital genres but I’m not convinced that “lo-fi” is always the answer. One of his best examples is Google’s email service but I also blame some of the “lo-fi” characteristics for some of my own frustrations with gmails email service. Again, I think the benefits outweigh the “loss” but the loss still exists.

Lunsford & the fifth canon
I think Lunsford’s case study of her rhetoric class was interesting because it teased out some of the issues we had with the technologies mentioned in the Horizon Report. How interesting that it was the students who told them in “no uncertain terms that while they loved the opportunity to explore new media in writing and to push their writing in new directions, they weren’t sure their writing was actually improving”. Lunsford’s summation pointed to writing professors’ (as could easily be speech professors) values as rhetoric, research, argument and presentation rather than advanced training in media production”. Later she suggests that there has to be some sort of ballance and that the technology and the writing need to be met at least half way. I think striving for this balance is what most of us will have to work through during our own teaching careers. Working with Steve Wiley, he told me that when he first taught his media classes he tried to include as much technology as possible. After much frustration he then reverted to as little technology as possible. I haven’t discussed his thoughts with him recently but after having him for CRD701 it seems he would now agree with Miraglia’s challenge: to “‘teach writing and speaking’ while allowing students an opportunity for ‘authoring in the most compelling and discursive modalities of their generation’” (Lunsford, p. 177).

Random side note
I went to a presentation by Mark Johnson over at Burns Auditorium last week and he was pointing out how all of our language and especially our metaphors (which he says is how with think) relate to the body. After using the word “balance” above I realize that refers to a scale and then some kind of body weight. I think for those of you interested in the identity of the body as it relates to the digital, would find his book “Philosophy in the Flesh” really interesting.

role of new media + writing + box

Now I’m suffering from information overload, infoglut, datasmog – however you like to refer to it. I’ve spent so much time trying to figure out how to organize thoughts this week because so many great ideas were provided. These authors (Wysocki, Sirc & Johnson-Eilola) wrote creatively about writing and new media while providing inspiring solutions to the changes they cited. Like the authors took their own advice (to an extent), I’m going to [attempt to] contribute accordingly. As Sirc (121) mentioned Richard Selfe, “Don’t suck the playful, exploratory spirit out of the digital media!”

Joseph Cornell, The Crystal Cage, 1943

Box: A new discussion of new media
After reading these chapters and considering the software available to us, I am amazed that software companies, designers, and consumers are satisfied with the logic of word processing programs (as well as other textual programs). Microsoft Word, which dominates most academic disciplines and professional organizations forces the user to act in a linearly. Wysocki points out “how many word-processing or Web page composing software packages do you  know that encourage scribbling, doodling, writing outside the margins, or writing in anything but straight lines? (Wysocki, 6)” In this sense, a pen and paper provide more freedom. I understand there are programs like InDesign, Illustrator, etc. that do provide a blank canvas (relatively speaking) but most writers would exchange freedom for ease of use (mostly in regards to time) which the other programs don’t really provide. I’m currently writing in Journler that allows for the easy addition multimedia but the format is still top to bottom, left to right. This is also like most blogs. Maybe with the use of touch and smart screens the software will begin to provide further freedoms and in turn different ways of thinking about organization and writing. In one of Wysocki’s suggested activities she asks students to write with a crayon instead of a pen or word processor and then asks if they found themselves thinking differently. I think this assignment would benefit graduate students as well. I’m curious how or if we would think differently. To me, her definition of new media texts is fascinating for this reason because though she steers us away from a technological deterministic mindset [“to look at texts only through their technological origin is to deflect out attentions from what we might achieve mindful that textual practices are always broader than the technological”] but also urges for the awareness of materiality “new media texts are those that have been made by composers who are aware of the range of materialities of texts and who then highlight the materiality (Wysocki, 15). I think it would be interesting for students of our program to hear more about why the term “digital media” was chosen over “new media”. 

Box: New strategies
The following quotes I thought were interesting in regards to how they would relate to evaluating assignments because they discuss untraditional criteria that really are important or that reward creativity and a variety of styles and learning methods.

Some of the most important rhetorical strategies… searching, selection, juxtaposition, and arrangement/layout, as well as the always-important ability to phrase important personal insights in as clear and memorable a way possible”. Sirc calls this the “heartfelt pensée.”

The search engine: what categories to include, what to exclude; which category to put first; etc.,– we can start to argue that these choices involve responsibilities to the reader and to society (Johnson-Eilola, 220)

Caesura — the stylistic device most absent in our curricula (Sirc, 123)

“Like Cornell and Benjamin, as well, it’s the poignant mix of poverty and desire, laced with an aesthetic of the cool” (Sirc, p. 118)

Charles Simic — “This is what Cornell is after[:] How to construct a vehicle of reverie, an object that would enrich the imagination of the viewer and keep him company forever” (44). 

Marcel Duchamp (French, 1887–1968)

Prior to reading the Sirc chapter I really was not familiar with Marcel Duchamp. The Metropolitan Museum of Art has a really interesting website full of thematic essays which includes a short bio on Marcel Duchamp along with the of his work that has been donated to the museum. Sometimes we scoff at adding a picture to an essay without a concrete reason for how it adds to the text but sometimes having any visual along with a text helps us/students remember something about the text. Kind of like how a certain smell can bring back memories. Having investigated Marcel Duchamp and arriving at this well-designed site, I am much less likely to forget my encounter with this new character. 

The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even (The Green Box)

Box: visual considerations & visual argument
“There is little or nothing, for example, that encourages someone composing a Web page to think about how and why, in her place and time, her choices of color and typeface and words and photograph and spatial arrangement shape the relationship she is constructing with her audience and hence shape how the audience is asked to act–as active citizens? as passive consumer? There is little or nothing that asks composers and readers to see and then question the values implicit in visual design choices, for such design is often presented as having no value other than functionally helping readers get directly to the point (Wysocki, 6).” This quote along with some of the rhetorical strategies Sirc discusses really inspire me to design a course on the visual rhetoric of new media. Wysocki’s assignment where she asks students to build a visual argument I think could be adapted for the course. Like in 702 where Dr. Gallagher had us create a rhetorical artifact so that we acted as rhetoricians and not only critics– this assignment reminds me of that. I think the idea of visual argument is so interesting because in some cases an argument can be made with no text at all (like many mathematical examples). These arguments definitely suggest images/design/arragment are powerful and when combined with text it’s hard to imagine that all we would examine is how an audience gets “directly to the point”.

distance + learning

Integration into the academic community & visual history of print
Bauman’s (1997) point in the Webb Peterson piece was interesting because it discussed students being “integrated into the academic community” (p.278) and that denying them a physical integration into the community denies them the opportunity for success. But how are we denying them access to the academic community if the academic community is largely online? And, this argument also assumes an online class could never allow for a sense of community when in fact it really could help a lot of students feel more connected (i.e. the CRDM Facebook group). Also I’m not sure how many students build the strongest relationships through “like minded people” that they meet during class. Many students build friendships through other activities they are involved in, through roommates, music interest (which they can discover through networked communities), etc.

However, I do think that Baumann and Webb Peterson were getting at a point I agree with–that there is the opportunity to lose valuable information and/or that replicating face to face interaction is complex. I think personally think that other mediums discarded because of online capabilities can be detrimental as well as the loss of face to face interaction. In Anson’s description of a girl going through an entire college day online I was struck most by her ability to do research for a paper completely online. I realize that so many papers are written without actually physically entering a library but that doesn’t mean that something doesn’t get lost. When researching the history about a 1911 visual artifact in Cleveland this summer I had to use microfiche to read newspaper articles from that year because they had not been digitally scanned or indexed. At first I was horrified that I would have to make an approximate guess about the date the article would have run and then have to scan through hundreds of pages to find the correct information. However, the experience ended up being a lot more memorable than any I’ve had through Lexis Nexis. By scanning through the articles I got to see  advertisements for popular products at the time, where exactly the article was placed, what hierarchy it fell next to other news items and just an overall visual connection to people over 100 years ago. It made me wonder if people would be able to look at old webpages and whether or not they would be indexed so researchers in the future could have the same sort of experience I was having. I’m thinking this won’t be the case since I’ve tried to recover access to old Target Facebook pages that had been removed without any success and that was only after being online about 6 months. I always find myself wishing I could “search” within printed text so I could find a quote I know I read 30 pages ago–wishing that one medium had the characteristics of another. But I think students should have the opportunity to experience the benefits of another medium as well–maybe they would appreciate the physical more permanent characteristics of something printed after being so far removed (like Jennifer). 

Benefits of tenure-track faculty in introductory courses
The articles on distance learning discussed short and long term implications of larger classes that never meet face to face with the instructor. They also made a point to mention the university’s motivations for making these changes. In order to compete with non-academic providers of education, the academic university works towards “high-quality, lower-cost educational programming” but this will result in “continued reduction in full-time, tenure-track faculty” (Anson, p. 57). Most of the examples given refer to introductory courses and focus on universally required composition course. I understand the problems cited regarding physically distances students from each other and from their mentors but I wish the articles would discuss at greater length the benefit of tenure track faculty. In most larger universities already, the introductory courses are not taught by full-time, tenure track faculty and this is partly because full-time faculty do not want to teach introductory courses (of course this is not the main reason but I doubt full-time faculty are outraged when they are continually slotted to teach upper-level courses). So when Anson (1999) mentions the savings promised from the elimination of trained professionals who reduce teacher-student ratios I wonder how it will be so different for an undergraduate to take a course from a trained online instructor vs. a teaching assistant in a lecture hall–in the level of expertise not in regards to face to face interaction (which I don’t know if students receive so much more of in a lecture hall anyway).

emerging technologies + the state of things

After reading academic journal articles (Wesch, Ohmann, Hawisher/Selfe) I was surprised by the Horizon Report’s lack of critical discussion of new technology use in the classroom.  I understand that the goal of the report is different but even in the sections titled “relevance for teaching, learning, and creative expression” the discussion focused mostly on how the technology could be used in the classroom — not whether or not this was always the best decision or potential problems with using the technology. Many of the statements were distracting (e.g. “providing millions of voices to be heard”) in regards to how this applies to the classroom. Why would allowing “millions of voices to be heard” be beneficial in the classroom? I’m not saying it wouldn’t but I’m curious how some of these features result in a better classroom/class experience. 

Generalizations & grassroots video
And, like some of the utopic comments Susan shared in class (digital classrooms remove social barriers)and we’ve read in other classes (Katz & Rice, Warnick, etc.) the Horizon Report makes generalizations that I just don’t see how they can adequately support. “Cost of production [in video] has dropped to nearly zero”. Wah? I agree, free editing software, etc. has dramatically reduced cost – but like Karla and others pointed out in their blogs, not all students come magically equipped with the latest cell phones, computers, internet access once they enter the university. I’ve heard Nick and other students in Dr. Silva’s mobile technologies class discuss how their cell phone video assignments were not so easy to accomplish with all of the readily available technology. Similarly, I’ve thought of having groups present videos they’ve created in COM 257 (media history and theory) but students and the department faculty I consulted with agreed the equipment just wasn’t so easily accessible for a class of 30 and only a handful of students were already creating video on their own.

Grassroots video vs. a paper
A year or two ago, the campus writing and speaking program hosted a professor from UNC (I think he was in the English dept. but I really can’t remember and find any records online or from my notes) who had students make videos instead of writing a traditional paper because he said the format of the assignment was just out of date. He presented a video he had made himself. Only the introduction of the video was original, the remaining was a collection of short clips from other movies. It might have violated copyright agreements and it he admitted that he had no training in film. Some asked the question (that reminds me of Kathy’s question last class), who should be teaching this kind of technology? Should students be making videos in film classes? Why would English spend the time helping students learn this technology when there is so much other information that has to be covered in a semester? Like we’ve seemed to agree on prior, if his intent for the activity focused on the content of the video and not the film theory then maybe it would be appropriate. Most of examples provided by the Horizon Report were of videos used in classes that either focused on video or whose goals were visually oriented (Mobius transformations, studio art). But how could the videos be used for other contexts?

Learning styles
I’ve been thinking about learning styles because I’ve been reading Donald Norman’s “Things that make us smart” and Gardner’s “Theory of Multiple Intelligences”. We’ve mentioned different learning and participation styles in class but I feel like the excitement around new technologies leads us to assume that everyone is a multi-tasker and learns by activity/doing when really some people actually excel or prefer to read and think solitarily about concepts ahead of time. Also, I think Dawn and Jon pointed out that the traditional paper turned directly into a professor was a much more private medium — something many students might prefer. I’m not sure how to negotiate the time that would be needed (for the professor) to provide assignments that allowed students to embark in an activity complementary to their learning style but I think this should be part of the discussion.

Social operating systems
This section in the Horizon Report really gave me some great ideas for future classes I’d like to try (I’m writing this more for my own records than the class, nothing really critical or interesting to say here). The chemistry example (p. 27) of graduate student’s and their research would be really useful to help students get to know one another within the classroom. So often, students sit in class together for a semester with the same interests and ideas and never make the connection where they could share and work together outside of class.

Net Generation: Ch. 5
Wow, I was really impressed with Windham’s article and writing style (probably more so because she is an undergraduate here at State). I think many of us can relate to her introductory anecdote but from different sides of the spectrum. I whole-heartedly empathized with her frustration with someone that doesn’t check his email.  What’s funny is that it doesn’t have to be someone from an older tradition/generation. It just as easily could be a fellow student in the CRDM program. Much of the decision to use various forms of technology seems to relate to personality types. Those with like Windham and myself think: How can someone simply opt out of a system that has been set up for them by the university and embraced by colleagues, students, etc.? But I guess that’s the point, the system wasn’t created or decided upon through their personal vote – so why should they have to conform to that form of communication? I’m currently thinking about my argument to this question.

Driven by hope
I was somewhat surprised when Windham said research found the net generation was driven by hope. In another seminar class last year, our professor commented that he thought our generation seemed less optimistic, less convinced that we could solve the overwhelming problems in the world. He mentioned his generation was driven by the modernist attitude that they could fix problems he insisted our generation was post modernist and not as optimistic or enthusiastic. So, I’m up in the air about this issue. I understand why we might appear optimistic by our enthusiasm for consumer/individual created content but we are also bombarded by so much information and in turn so many problems that it really can be overwhelming (like when Nick drew his map in 701 and said he was depressed by all the environmental problems).

part 2 of foundations + histories

It is kind of an unusual feeling to think about blogging for this class while reading about blogging – especially about blogging tendencies. This week I decided to read some of the other posts before I wrote my own blog and I haven’t decided if that is the way to go or not. It seemed like the articles took so many different directions/topics that I just wasn’t sure where to begin. And sometimes I think my tendency throughout all class readings and discussions is to focus too much on details instead of key themes and messages I should be absorbing. Unfortunately, this is not a set up for a new and improved blog post… just introductory unrelated thoughts.

I think Kathy and Jon both wrote about Kim’s (2007) blog article and the discussion about students responding to peers through comments and how comments will motivate more blogging. I’m beginning to realize it really does make it more fun to post to a blog when you find someone has commented on your writing. However, there is that weird feeling where I wonder if anyone would have commented on a post if Susan hadn’t coaxed us. Is what I wrote interesting or are people just being nice or doing their duty? I think this feeling also goes back to what Susan wrote about having the urge to continually delete posts.

Knowing that the instructor has set parameters for the blog and will also be reading the posts (or at least many) is an issue that has come up in a few of the articles we have read already — the idea of self disciplining. When an issue related to this comes up in the Kim article, the issue of shared blog space vs. personal blog space, it interests me because I don’t really see how the dynamics are so different from one another. If students are still reading each other’s posts, regardless of whether or not they appear on the same screen, how does that create a safer space (especially when students are expected to respond)? Comparing our 704 personal blogs to our shared blog from 701 should serve as a good example but I’m not sure I see a difference in the writing (as far as safety is concerned). However, most feedback I’ve heard about the blogging has been that the personal blogs with the RSS feeds is a better system. But why do we think that? I think Kim is right that ownership of space has a lot to do with it, but what is it really making better?

Another thing I’ve noticed about many of the articles we’ve been reading for the class is commitment to empirical data that is usually discussed as generalizable (maybe not explicitly). So many of these issues the articles address, like in the Palmquist et al. article, are things that may often depend on the individual. This was one of the most interesting articles for me. There findings were interesting and I think the inferences they draw make sense but I found myself thinking ‘the answer to that depends on the individual’. For instance, the discussion of replacing electronic mail for face-to-face contact, they suggest is best for subjects that can be dealt with quickly. However, I think many of us have worked with professors who actually explain themselves better through writing because they have to choose their words more carefully and can’t end their sentences with “see what I mean?” Often students are left feeling like they have to respond ‘yes’ in this situation because of time restraints and pressure from nonverbal cues. This article ends by saying that instructors need to “adapt”. That seems to be true for so much of teaching. Trying something  out, seeing if it works for the individual professor and then adapting depending on the results and the changing context/setting. Also, students also learn to adapt much of the time. In the computer classrooms where they were put in more of a leadership role they acted appropriately.

Finally, a more detailed oriented thought: Morreale et al. (2006) mentions that CAC has not had an impact on the basic course and that there are challenges based on this approach. They base this assertion on the fact that CAC has not replaced most basic courses in higher education. I agree that CAC has not had an impact on the basic course but this is also not the goal of most CAC programs so it doesn’t make sense that they would have an impact. Most CAC programs advocate for the basic course but believe that communicating is important enough within all disciplines that  it should be addressed in those courses as well (i.e. natural resources students having to give an oral presentation). I’m not positive, but I think WAC programs have had much greater success (at least better than 11.1%).

part 1 of foundations+histories

Maybe I wouldn’t have thought it so interesting most days, but last night I was really interested in the Hratinski & Keller (2007) piece because I had just helped Amy Gaffney test reliability for a CXC article that was REALLY similar in format. Like the computer-mediated piece, she had surveyed a large body of literature and then had organized articles according to research topics. So, I guess I felt slightly connected to the H&K piece. Every once in a while we come across meta analysis articles in other subject areas (for me most recently seen in a visual rhetoric course), but I have definitely seen these most often in the instructional and CXC literature. Does anyone know – are they more common here in this field or am I arriving at that conclusion illogically? These kinds of studies that survey the literature, might not seem like the most exciting ventures (Nick), but I think they are really important for all fields–just to take a step back. It reminded me a little of our first colloquium this semester when Dr. Packer mentioned the anecdote where the qualitative guru chastised his academic colleagues for not writing / researching the war. Perhaps not the best comparison, but this oversight is similar to Hratinski & Keller’s discovery about  about the lack of synchronous media research.

Most of their findings illustrated a trend towards a blending of methods (qualitative & quantitative / hybrid courses). I think their research could also benefit with more blending of methods or at least comparing the type of research being done in relation to statistics about actual educational trends (unless this just isn’t available and this is the exact research they are calling for). A comparison would be interesting because at the end of the piece where they discuss where research is lacking (synchronous media use, non-textual media, email, etc.), I wondered if this also reflects parallel use in the classroom. In other words, students might use instant messaging informally with one another – but maybe it is more rare that it is used instructionally, the same goes for non-textual media. I am surprised about the lack of email research but maybe this is seen as more private and is harder for researchers to access. My final question about this article has to do with their methods. I understood that they articles had to address some aspect of CMC in education (p. 64), but how did they select the articles after this point (117/ 673)?

In the Hawisher & Selfe (1991) piece, their statement about student’s self-disciplining themselves in ways that they see as socially and educationally appropriate (p. 43), confused me somewhat. I understood their comparison to the Panopticon but I don’t really see how student’s self-disciplining contradicts with an instructor’s goals. In the CCCC Statement on teaching and learning (p. 16) it says that writing is contextual (as well as social) and that students should be able to “write for a variety of purposes in the academic, professional, civic, and personal arenas of life”. Why shouldn’t they learn to self-discipline for their instructor as well as their peers? Does this make their learning less active? I’m not convinced they won’t bring up certain topics for fear from the instructor, in my opinion it just forces them to have more information to back up arguments. 

The idea that computers can pre-empt valuable exchanges between teachers and students (p. 40), I also found interesting because most often we think of networked computers as providing opportunities for students who do not always have a voice in the classroom. However, when students are asked to blog in classes, my biggest issue with that is that often students have important things to say that are never discussed in the classroom. The topics may never be read by their classmates but because they have written their thoughts online their insights never resurface because students feels like they have already had their say. Students may just feel redundant.  

Non Article Related: So I didn’t originally mean to create a profile album on the wiki but I posted my profile pic in the wrong place at first and I could not figure out how to delete it. If anyone can let me know how to do that, I would appreciate it. Maybe the album will be interesting if people change their profile pictures… though I don’t know if that will happen really.

similarities / differences + undergrads

Students having to know how to multi-task, is something that I think pertains to most students today – but it is not something new from when I was an undergrad. Maybe what they choose to do with their time is different. It might be because my teaching experiences have largely been in media classes (with students who supposedly interested in media) but I feel like one of the biggest differences is in what students spend their time doing. Instead of instant messaging they are on Facebook and instead of watching TV they are on the internet (maybe watching videos /TV). I think though, they are writing and creating more than when I was an undergrad. During presentations and class discussions, some students share videos they’ve made, blogs they’ve written, lolcats they’ve designed. Not all students create digitally, but most tell me they do not watch TV. They say they are too busy.

I don’t think students study any less today than when I was an undergrad. Furthermore, I think it depends largely on the student and the demands of the program they are in. I get kind of frustrated with one-line statements that are supposed to give us a vision of students today when really each one is so different. Also,

I think students today are having to learn how to be critical of the information they receive more so than when I was an undergrad (though we were beginning to have to do that). It’s interesting watching someone, even distinguished professors using the internet and seeing them click on links that are obviously NOT what they are searching for through Google. They will just click through each link beginning at the top. I think students today (though we sometimes criticize their research skills), just by the amount of time they spend doing Google searches are learning how to sift through information more efficiently – improving their multi-tasking. The first video asked “who will manage all this data?” And I think the best answer is – the individual. Giving the individual the power to catalog data that is relevant to him/her, like delicious, makes finding information you’ve stored in the back of your mind so much easier. I think this efficient data storing and cataloging is the answer to much of the one-liner issues from the “vision of student” video.