As spring break approaches, I realize how much stuff I have to get done and how little time, not to mention that senior year brings with it a lot of dates and deadlines which put more pressure and stress on an individual. I'm starting to feel it. And this flu/cold thing going around sucks and needs to go away.
But anyways, to prepare for a huge interview that I have on Friday, I was sent a lot of new articles and studies that I have to read and be prepared for. Although I don't know exactly what the form of the interview is going to be, I'm thinking it's going to be some form of question and answer session where I have to think on my toes and be prepared for what they ask.
Thus, I am reading and re-reading these articles, trying to prepare myself. But they are not the most up-lifting. Many of the articles consist of closing the gap between the poorer, minority children and other younger kids. What baffles me is how a gap like this can still exist in schools today in America, in which government money is being frivolously spent and politicians preach to solve such problems, but once elected into office, seemingly have their hands tied.
Thus, we've come to the day in which schools that have the highest performance go private and even the best teacher's potential is wasted in a low-funded, un-controlled environment in which children already feel as though they will amount to nothing. It bothers me that in a society seemingly so connected, we ignore the fact that those who aren't connected are those that need help the most.
But anyhow, the educational gap is something that many people have not only been struggling with, but have been trying to solve for years before my time. One blog post by me just seems to belittle the problem, which I know has a lot of causes and involves so much more that a quick-fix. Yet in some ways I believe that it is our responsibility as soon-to-be grads from UW-Madison to help out and become active in such a problem. As computer networks grow, so too is the educational network growing. How can we turn it into a network that is more successful for everyone involved in the system?
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
How Connected are We?
After finishing both chapters of Watts book, Six Degrees, I started realizing how connected that we, as a generation, truly are. And furthermore, the point that I think Watts tries to make is that we are connected by many different things, things we don't even think about each day. We are no longer a grid network, but we are vastly connected. And again, I ask, is this a good thing? Or does this connectivity and vast network create problems that we do not even begin to see?
One of the main reasons why I ask this question here, is because of the issues that Watts raises in his opening remarks of the chapter, The Connected Age. Right in the beginning Watts states that "Americans have become increasingly reliant on a truly staggering and ever growing array of devices, facilities, and services that have turned a once hostile environment into the lifestyle equivalent of a cool breeze." He points out things like the power grid and the loss of power in major metropolitan areas like New York city in the 1970s. But what really amazed me through this whole discussion was the fact that people couldn't not handle the loss of such a 'vital' network and rioting, etc ensued. In a world where we, as Americans, are so connected, is it a good thing?
Watts continues to discuss the development of networks or their 'emergence.' For Watts, this emergence is the question of how individual behavior aggregates to collective behavior. Some of the examples he writes about are things like the human brain, the human genome, or the power surge in the UK that occurred as everyone watched the soccer game and made tea. Through this idea of emergence, or the way in which interactions can have profound consequences for the emergence of new phenomena brings about this idea of networks.
Networks, in Watts opinion, consists of a collection of objects connected to each other in 'some fashion' (p 27). But on that same note, it is hard for us to truly pin down what a network is because it is used for a vast array of different things: computers, systems, travel, friends, etc. Furthermore, Watts makes the point that in the past, networks have been viewed as objects of "pure structure whose properties are fixed in time." That doesn't necessarily hold to this day, in which networks are changing and evolving overtime, which is the whole point of a network.
But, more interestingly, and the question that I have not yet answered (and we as a class have not yet had the time to discuss) is a network's impact on society. Once we rely whole-heartedly on a connected society, what would it do to us? I mean, even in a loosely connected office of computers, a virus or worm could wipe out years of work off a computer. A few hours of no electricity in the streets of New York at night could cause mayhem and when airports or buses (transportation networks) shut down it causes pure chaos. Even scarier, a disease that starts in one continent, could span the world and disrupt it in a matter of less than a week.
So with this new emergence of network cultures, is it a good thing? I don't know if Watts has given us a definitive answer. I myself believe that we need to look at it with distrust and make sure we have safe-guards in place.
One of the main reasons why I ask this question here, is because of the issues that Watts raises in his opening remarks of the chapter, The Connected Age. Right in the beginning Watts states that "Americans have become increasingly reliant on a truly staggering and ever growing array of devices, facilities, and services that have turned a once hostile environment into the lifestyle equivalent of a cool breeze." He points out things like the power grid and the loss of power in major metropolitan areas like New York city in the 1970s. But what really amazed me through this whole discussion was the fact that people couldn't not handle the loss of such a 'vital' network and rioting, etc ensued. In a world where we, as Americans, are so connected, is it a good thing?
Watts continues to discuss the development of networks or their 'emergence.' For Watts, this emergence is the question of how individual behavior aggregates to collective behavior. Some of the examples he writes about are things like the human brain, the human genome, or the power surge in the UK that occurred as everyone watched the soccer game and made tea. Through this idea of emergence, or the way in which interactions can have profound consequences for the emergence of new phenomena brings about this idea of networks.
Networks, in Watts opinion, consists of a collection of objects connected to each other in 'some fashion' (p 27). But on that same note, it is hard for us to truly pin down what a network is because it is used for a vast array of different things: computers, systems, travel, friends, etc. Furthermore, Watts makes the point that in the past, networks have been viewed as objects of "pure structure whose properties are fixed in time." That doesn't necessarily hold to this day, in which networks are changing and evolving overtime, which is the whole point of a network.
But, more interestingly, and the question that I have not yet answered (and we as a class have not yet had the time to discuss) is a network's impact on society. Once we rely whole-heartedly on a connected society, what would it do to us? I mean, even in a loosely connected office of computers, a virus or worm could wipe out years of work off a computer. A few hours of no electricity in the streets of New York at night could cause mayhem and when airports or buses (transportation networks) shut down it causes pure chaos. Even scarier, a disease that starts in one continent, could span the world and disrupt it in a matter of less than a week.
So with this new emergence of network cultures, is it a good thing? I don't know if Watts has given us a definitive answer. I myself believe that we need to look at it with distrust and make sure we have safe-guards in place.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Cool: Revisited. Reading Notes
After having time over the weekend to re-read Rice's introduction and first two chapters, I thought that it would be a good idea to revisit the idea of cool and what cool writing it. First off, I think it is important to show the dichotomy between the two types of cool that he is discussing. Secondly, I want to write on what he really is saying. Did he ever give us a clear definition of what writing about cool is? And do I agree with it?
What was very noticeable throughout the reading was that Rice was trying to define this idea of cool, realizing that the word "cool" itself has since (from its initial use) changed in meaning. For example, Rice was stating that back in the day, or at least the '60s, cool was a term used to rebel against authority, to question it. It was associated with people of that time who did do things different, like James Dean he stated. It was a way to act out and get attention but the things that were associated with "cool" were just those things that went against the times--they weren't too provocative.
But then somewhere along the line, as Rice admits, this definition or idea of what cool is changed. Cool became associated not with defying authority or thinking for oneself, going against the masses, but rather it turned into something rather negative. Cool became a word captured by writers and advertisers and used in very specific ways to get children, young adults and the like to do what they wanted. Cool became a word that could change a person's mind, made a person buy something, do something, change something about themselves, etc. This is why we see "cool sites" popping up and the word cool in advertisements and on posters. There is something about the word cool that makes us stop and think, because cool has changed to mean what's "in" or "hip."
So how is Rice using the word cool though?
What was very noticeable throughout the reading was that Rice was trying to define this idea of cool, realizing that the word "cool" itself has since (from its initial use) changed in meaning. For example, Rice was stating that back in the day, or at least the '60s, cool was a term used to rebel against authority, to question it. It was associated with people of that time who did do things different, like James Dean he stated. It was a way to act out and get attention but the things that were associated with "cool" were just those things that went against the times--they weren't too provocative.
But then somewhere along the line, as Rice admits, this definition or idea of what cool is changed. Cool became associated not with defying authority or thinking for oneself, going against the masses, but rather it turned into something rather negative. Cool became a word captured by writers and advertisers and used in very specific ways to get children, young adults and the like to do what they wanted. Cool became a word that could change a person's mind, made a person buy something, do something, change something about themselves, etc. This is why we see "cool sites" popping up and the word cool in advertisements and on posters. There is something about the word cool that makes us stop and think, because cool has changed to mean what's "in" or "hip."
So how is Rice using the word cool though?
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Cooooooool.
This semester, I'm taking four classes: Utopia: The Temptation of Hope, History: Italian Renaissance, Latin America: Perspectives, and this English Class. Considering that these courses cover a wide array of areas, you'd think it'd be easy to come up with common words, themes, and concepts, but it is not (or maybe I just don't get it).
I think one common word/concept between the courses would be culture. In English, culture is used to define/categorize things. As stated in the Rice book, culture asks questions and allows us to define ourselves. In history, I am studying a specific culture in a specific time period--the Renaissance. The specific questions have already been asked and I am simply reading about it. My Utopia class discusses a mystical or non-existent culture, one that individuals hope for but can never achieve. Finally, my Latin American class also describes a specific, yet present-day culture. We not only ask questions in that class, but we try to come up with answers as well. Culture can mean many things, it can talk about the past, present, or future; a real or imaginary thing; and it can ask as well as answer specific questions.
As far as other common themes, I really can't think of any that overlap all classes. Media would be a close second, but the only way it differs is the use of media, learning about media, and all the different types of media, which I learn about in this class. Another common theme might be people, which links all of my classes together, but that seems simply too obvious.
I think I might revisit this post once I fully understand what writing about cool really is.
I think one common word/concept between the courses would be culture. In English, culture is used to define/categorize things. As stated in the Rice book, culture asks questions and allows us to define ourselves. In history, I am studying a specific culture in a specific time period--the Renaissance. The specific questions have already been asked and I am simply reading about it. My Utopia class discusses a mystical or non-existent culture, one that individuals hope for but can never achieve. Finally, my Latin American class also describes a specific, yet present-day culture. We not only ask questions in that class, but we try to come up with answers as well. Culture can mean many things, it can talk about the past, present, or future; a real or imaginary thing; and it can ask as well as answer specific questions.
As far as other common themes, I really can't think of any that overlap all classes. Media would be a close second, but the only way it differs is the use of media, learning about media, and all the different types of media, which I learn about in this class. Another common theme might be people, which links all of my classes together, but that seems simply too obvious.
I think I might revisit this post once I fully understand what writing about cool really is.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Reading Notes #2
Networks and New Media & How We Process the Media
Last week, we read one article and viewed a media clip that again addressed the question of new media, what college English should be, and networks. We also viewed a media clip that addressed some of the same questions.
The writing, by Jeff Rice, was very though-provoking. It addressed questions that I had on the previous readings, but was also a more realistic piece addressing what the new curriculum might be.
One of the most memorable lines of the text was the statement Rice makes in which he states linking is a new form or type of connection. I agree with this statement and believe that this is precisely why we have to change the English curriculum to entail these types of new media. This new media is different then simply sending a letter or a paper memo out in a business. It is a new form of communication, where interaction and networking are key. It is important to teach these types of new media, because later in life, you will rarely send someone a letter. You will email, or text message or something such as that. In a business meeting you will not simply lecture, but you will give a powerpoint presentation, make a webpage, or use some other new media form. If we are not taught the proper way to incorporate this new media and still be professional, we will be in the dark just as much as our parents were when computers became widely adopted.
But as the other readings, Rice still brings up some criticisms. For example, will the rise of the network just further globalization and therefore lessen equality? Furthermore, he brings up the point that networks also impose a new wave of intellectual stagnation "as dominant holders of intellectual work establish larger chains of control." Isn't this what we saw in the early '90s as computer companies such as Microsoft and Intel were on the rise? And what will the effect of this be not only economically, but on the intellectual community?
Thus we are still left with the question: will the rise of networks connect us more? or cut us off from one another and leave us more alone? Will it further the gap between the haves and the have nots? Will it create repercussions that we still haven't seen? And how will these networks change our socialization process? Are they just more responsive, open-edited, and open-ended? And what's the benefit of that?
Last week, we read one article and viewed a media clip that again addressed the question of new media, what college English should be, and networks. We also viewed a media clip that addressed some of the same questions.
The writing, by Jeff Rice, was very though-provoking. It addressed questions that I had on the previous readings, but was also a more realistic piece addressing what the new curriculum might be.
One of the most memorable lines of the text was the statement Rice makes in which he states linking is a new form or type of connection. I agree with this statement and believe that this is precisely why we have to change the English curriculum to entail these types of new media. This new media is different then simply sending a letter or a paper memo out in a business. It is a new form of communication, where interaction and networking are key. It is important to teach these types of new media, because later in life, you will rarely send someone a letter. You will email, or text message or something such as that. In a business meeting you will not simply lecture, but you will give a powerpoint presentation, make a webpage, or use some other new media form. If we are not taught the proper way to incorporate this new media and still be professional, we will be in the dark just as much as our parents were when computers became widely adopted.
But as the other readings, Rice still brings up some criticisms. For example, will the rise of the network just further globalization and therefore lessen equality? Furthermore, he brings up the point that networks also impose a new wave of intellectual stagnation "as dominant holders of intellectual work establish larger chains of control." Isn't this what we saw in the early '90s as computer companies such as Microsoft and Intel were on the rise? And what will the effect of this be not only economically, but on the intellectual community?
Thus we are still left with the question: will the rise of networks connect us more? or cut us off from one another and leave us more alone? Will it further the gap between the haves and the have nots? Will it create repercussions that we still haven't seen? And how will these networks change our socialization process? Are they just more responsive, open-edited, and open-ended? And what's the benefit of that?
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Writing....What?
So, what is writing? Writing, especially academic writing, can mean many different things these days. But prior to the computer boom, along with the coming of blogs, email, facebook, and all the other new technology, I believe that writing has not only changed the scope but academic writing is changing altogether.
Academic writing, in the most sincere form, is an in-depth process, one in which you can't simply flush out a paper over night or turn in a first-draft. In fact, we still follow this process in many of our college classes still today, whether a dissertation is being written or a term paper, or some lab write up of our findings or results. Thus, the process is as follows: you brainstorm, outline, prewrite, write, revise, edit (whether it be with a peer or professor) and finally, publish. And this is done with many things, as indicated by the collage above: a poem is even revised, whereas a personal diary imitates the beginning stages of the writing process in which the author is brainstorming and simply putting in print whatever comes to his/her mind first.
But I think what is interesting, is that given our new technology, the face of academic writing is changing. We are brainstorming in blogs and online, we write and prewrite on the computer instead of paper, and we partake in the peer review process via email or other ways. Although this doesn't necessarily mean that the whole process of academic writing is changed, but the ways in which we do it are different. I think that this changes our conception of writing because it connects us more and becomes more interactive. Changes and revisions can be made at a split second and information (although we must be weary of the source and the validity) are at the click of a mouse.
But what about the consequences? Is this all good? In a sense, I think we still must be careful. With the vast information and the connectivity that academic writing now brings with it, we have to be careful of things that the YouTube video said we should be weary of. For example, what are the new indications that this brings about for copyright, plagiarism, piracy, privacy, and intellectual property rights in general? Yet, I believe that as long as we have the old protocol in place (brainstorm, prewrite, write, revise, edit, etc) some of these things can be mediated and we can understand how to handle them.
Thus, I believe that even though some of the academic writing as we were taught are in fact, outdated, the process itself must still stand in place as a check of the new and fast-paced media that is constantly in our face. We must have a curriculum that strikes a balance between the old and the new, because with out the old process itself, academic writing could turn into a informal, unchecked, and unethical process.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Reading Notes #1
"Rhetorics Fast and Slow"
Lester Faigley
To begin with, I thought that this article was very interesting and although I enjoyed both of the articles we had to read for last Thursday's class, I agreed slightly more with the points that Faigley was not only trying to iterate, but the underlying concepts he was presenting.
What I like most about this piece, was that although Faigley was making a clear point that we have to be aware of the new media, or this rhetoric as it is changing but also that we cannot forget about the slow rhetoric and the underlying basis of or English curriculum. Fast is good for certain things, but not at the expense of losing the meaning of rhetoric itself or leaving individuals behind. In a world in which everything seems to be 1000 miles per hour, slow rhetoric, too, is something we much still be aware of.
pg. 50, left: Faigley makes the point that fast rhetoric dominates our world. Especially for us (people my age and younger) this is a valid statement. I could not live a month without internet and if it were dial-up, I don't think I could deal with it. I think with this statement he is truly capturing not only his personal definition of this fast rhetoric, but is allowing us to see how much it consumes our lives.
pg. 51: This statement of the dominating character of fast rhetoric is again revisited with the list he supplies discussing cell phone, checking email, the money we waste, and the overall resentment we have for all that is slow and the seconds within the day that we feel we are losing.
pg. 51, left: Although Faigley understands the importance of such fast rhetoric, he also takes into consideration how such an input of vast information, coming at us from all directions and at a fast pace, leads to less understanding. Is this good? In a world where decisions are made that affect the whole, can we really afford to have more information but less understanding? And is this necessarily better?
pg. 51, right: Faigley reiterates this (previous) point by stating that "Fast has overwhelmed slow." and "Speed brings risks." Personally, I think that because this fast rhetoric is so new, we have not seen all the implications that it might bring yet. Although fast rhetoric I believe, can be a good thing and connects us through networks, etc, I believe that it can't just take over the basic frameworks in place or the slow rhetoric. I feel that this will just serve to make individuals more unequal and can even serve to make society less rather than more connected.
pg. 52, right: Finally, I think that Faigley truly captures what he means by stating that "the fate of the future generations will depend on how well the students we teach can use slow rhetoric." Languages, writing, constructing a poem, or even a letter on a piece of stationary are all things that I fear might be lost if fast rhetoric continues to not only take over, but as it continues to overwhelm. As a society and as learners and teachers these things are all still very important, at least in my view.
Discussion
Although I tend to agree with Faigley more than some of the other readings we have had thus far, I still think that fast rhetoric is something not only important to but vital to place in our curriculum. Especially in a world of growing people, globalization, more complicated technologies and just the basic disconnect we have with one another, I think that slow rhetoric will be an important component. Although even more importantly though, I think that we need to find a way to teach this fast rhetoric and non-textual components in society (such as this wikipedia, etc) in a way that is more efficient and understood (rather than just a compilation of information without explanation.
Furthermore, as I discussed in class, we also need to find a way to make such a fast rhetoric available to all, not just to those that can afford it. In doing so, we can help ameliorate this divide and disconnect that such fast rhetoric threatens to do.
Questions
1.) Should we value more information or simply a better understanding of the information already available to us?
2.) Will fast rhetoric truly help globalize the world in which we live, creating a network that links us all to one another, or will it create a greater divide that threatens to make us more individualized and disconnected?
3.) Can a curriculum be made to include both slow and fast rhetoric? And how can teachers not trained in these types of rhetoric teach their students the trade? And if they can't, will this be a problem for future generations or will they figure it out on their own?
Lester Faigley
To begin with, I thought that this article was very interesting and although I enjoyed both of the articles we had to read for last Thursday's class, I agreed slightly more with the points that Faigley was not only trying to iterate, but the underlying concepts he was presenting.
What I like most about this piece, was that although Faigley was making a clear point that we have to be aware of the new media, or this rhetoric as it is changing but also that we cannot forget about the slow rhetoric and the underlying basis of or English curriculum. Fast is good for certain things, but not at the expense of losing the meaning of rhetoric itself or leaving individuals behind. In a world in which everything seems to be 1000 miles per hour, slow rhetoric, too, is something we much still be aware of.
pg. 50, left: Faigley makes the point that fast rhetoric dominates our world. Especially for us (people my age and younger) this is a valid statement. I could not live a month without internet and if it were dial-up, I don't think I could deal with it. I think with this statement he is truly capturing not only his personal definition of this fast rhetoric, but is allowing us to see how much it consumes our lives.
pg. 51: This statement of the dominating character of fast rhetoric is again revisited with the list he supplies discussing cell phone, checking email, the money we waste, and the overall resentment we have for all that is slow and the seconds within the day that we feel we are losing.
pg. 51, left: Although Faigley understands the importance of such fast rhetoric, he also takes into consideration how such an input of vast information, coming at us from all directions and at a fast pace, leads to less understanding. Is this good? In a world where decisions are made that affect the whole, can we really afford to have more information but less understanding? And is this necessarily better?
pg. 51, right: Faigley reiterates this (previous) point by stating that "Fast has overwhelmed slow." and "Speed brings risks." Personally, I think that because this fast rhetoric is so new, we have not seen all the implications that it might bring yet. Although fast rhetoric I believe, can be a good thing and connects us through networks, etc, I believe that it can't just take over the basic frameworks in place or the slow rhetoric. I feel that this will just serve to make individuals more unequal and can even serve to make society less rather than more connected.
pg. 52, right: Finally, I think that Faigley truly captures what he means by stating that "the fate of the future generations will depend on how well the students we teach can use slow rhetoric." Languages, writing, constructing a poem, or even a letter on a piece of stationary are all things that I fear might be lost if fast rhetoric continues to not only take over, but as it continues to overwhelm. As a society and as learners and teachers these things are all still very important, at least in my view.
Discussion
Although I tend to agree with Faigley more than some of the other readings we have had thus far, I still think that fast rhetoric is something not only important to but vital to place in our curriculum. Especially in a world of growing people, globalization, more complicated technologies and just the basic disconnect we have with one another, I think that slow rhetoric will be an important component. Although even more importantly though, I think that we need to find a way to teach this fast rhetoric and non-textual components in society (such as this wikipedia, etc) in a way that is more efficient and understood (rather than just a compilation of information without explanation.
Furthermore, as I discussed in class, we also need to find a way to make such a fast rhetoric available to all, not just to those that can afford it. In doing so, we can help ameliorate this divide and disconnect that such fast rhetoric threatens to do.
Questions
1.) Should we value more information or simply a better understanding of the information already available to us?
2.) Will fast rhetoric truly help globalize the world in which we live, creating a network that links us all to one another, or will it create a greater divide that threatens to make us more individualized and disconnected?
3.) Can a curriculum be made to include both slow and fast rhetoric? And how can teachers not trained in these types of rhetoric teach their students the trade? And if they can't, will this be a problem for future generations or will they figure it out on their own?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
