Zotero: Truly the Next Generation of Research Tools

I started working on my Zotero presentation today, using it for some very preliminary research for a paper I will eventually write for my Modern Rhetorical Theory class. And I really, really, really wish I had discovered Zotero a long time ago.

Zotero allows you to compile in one place all of your research on library websites, databases and indexes, and the WWW. Within the same web-browser, you can view a source found on JSTOR, then look at a website, then go to a search result for a book, and then return to the JSTOR source. How do you add all of these sources to your Zotero library? When you find them, click on the little icon in the URL address bar. It's that easy. Even better, you can minimze Zotero so your view of the browser window is unobstructed; yet the archiving function works whether Zotero is visible or minimized.

Once you have all of your sources collected in this one place (the Zotero extension on your Firefox Browser), you can then organize them into folders, add notes about them, or even use floating digital sticky-notes to annotate the digital text. You can even highlight. You can search certain key-word tags that Zotero automatically establishes as you build your library; this enables you to quickly find which source or sources relate to a certain concept you're writing about. You can also add your own tags as needed. And you can search for terms or keywords within the documents in your library, making it even easier to cross-reference sources.

Essentially, Zotero allows you to build and organize your very own customizable database. Oh, did I mention that you can export fully-formatted citations in one of about twenty different styles? You don't have to input any data or even know what is required by your citation style. This feature alone makes using Zotero more than worthwhile. I am looking forward to sharing the Zotero fever in class tomorrow night.

On Stuart Selber's "Rhetorical Literacy"

Since Rhetorical Computer Literacy builds on and utilizes both Functional and Critical Literacy, this is clearly Selber's crown jewel of technological literacy, so to speak. The key distinction between Rhetorical and Critical Literacy is that the former entails thoughtful production in addition to thoughtful observation and/or utilization. To produce interface systems, however, requires a great deal of technical knowledge that many Humanities and English faculty may not be able to obtain. If Humanities teachers were technologically inclined, they probably wouldn't be humanities teachers. Of course, many Humanities teachers can and do master advanced technology. However, I think it will take a great deal of education and effort to teach students to be Rhetorically Literate if we must first learn and then teach how to produce computer interfaces. At the least, one would have to take programming classes to learn to create software, a task for which many very smart people get paid very big bucks.

Of course, the above critique assumes that teachers and students are aiming to produce interfaces from scratch. Google, in its democratizing philosophy, has made it incredibly easy for the average computer user to construct a website. Yet the structure, content, and dissemination of a Google site are all influenced by Google's software design, if we accept Selber's arguments. To truly break free of any influence, we need to create our own interfaces, putting us back at the conundrum of mastering advanced uses of technology without extensive technical training and knowledge. It seems to me that Computer Science/Engineering students should be reading Selber along with English and Humanities students, who could potentially help Computer Science/Engineering students to recognize the political, social, and rhetorical influences of their work.

Well...

If everyone else has been as busy as I've been lately, then no one has had time to work on their technology narratives, let alone post feedback on others' narratives. So this general feedback shouldn't be wasted. I was going to post individualized feedback, but it's been a week since I saw all the narratives and I'm not sure which narrative goes with which person. Plus, I'm not entirely sure about the ownership of all the blogs. In any case, posting general comments to my blog is probably more efficient anyway, since theoretically everyone will read this post.

In general, I liked the content and creativity of each of the narratives. Each site featured the author's unique perspective and approach. The text, graphics, and other elements all reflected cohesive narratives that informed the audience about the author's experience and the broader issues/concerns of technological change. In terms of constructive criticism, I noticed that most of the sites did not incorporate graphics or other media in a rhetorical manner. In other words, the pictures were usually placed between blocks of text without aesthetic consideration. I've noticed that most professional websites place graphics, buttons, videos, etc. in a way that directs the viewer's attention to them while simultaneously allowing the viewer to ignore or skip over them to focus on the text itself. Obviously, we're all beginning web-designers who are still learning how to use google sites, so I'm sure that our revisions will vastly improve in this area.

Meta-Discourse on Technology Narrative

In my narrative, I am progressing chronologically through my most noteworthy experiences with computers. I started with my first major experience and moved on to the major experiences/uses of my youth. I plan to describe my more recent experiences using technology as a teacher/student. Finally, I will conclude with some general reflections.

Interestingly, I've been focusing on the textual aspect of my narrative and neglecting other media. It makes sense that I would want to devote most of my energy in the early stages to something I'm already comfortable with, while saving the things I'm less comfortable/experienced with for later stages of my "composing" (I use composing loosely since this narrative is multimedia). This way, I can rest assured that I have a strong base that can only be complemented effectively or ineffectively, not destroyed or marred. To use a house-building analogy: once I lay the foundation and build the frame of my narrative (website), I can more freely experiment with the wall-paper and carpeting.

The above makes sense for any kind of "composing" (or creative systems-building, if you will). George Jensen and John DiTiberio describe in "Personality and Individual Writing Processes" how writers have "preferred" and "non-preferred" writing processes based on their personality traits; writers tend to use their preferred processes early in the writing process and then consciously use their non-preferred processes when revising in order to round out their writing. Not only is this concept really helpful for understanding one's own writing process, overcoming writing blocks, etc., but it also greatly aids teaching.