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.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, January 26, 2009
On Cynthia Selfe's Concept of "Paying Attention"
Cynthia Selfe's essay, "Technology and Literacy: The Perils of Not Paying Attention," was very interesting and thought-provoking. Her thesis is right on the money, although I'm not as certain about the appropriateness of her "doomsday" tone. For the most part, it was very well-written; I agreed with many of her arguments. However, there were a few parts that lost me.
I completely agree with Selfe when it comes to the necessity for English Professors, Writing teachers,and others to "pay attention" to technology. She argues that academics in the Humanities, particularly English and related fields, regard technology merely as a "tool" to be used or ignored according to one's pedagogical/technological preferences. Either option leads to the same result: willful ignorance of the social, cultural, and economic contexts of technology when framed as a literacy (i.e. the consequences when society formally or informally rewards/punishes people for their ability/inability to use computer technology). This willful ignorance amounts to a tacit acceptance and support of the current status quo, which consists of rampant racial and social inequality in terms of access to technology and concomitant economic opportunity. The point of technology literacy programs, Selfe reminds us, is to enhance peoples' educational and economic prospects. If people are denied technology literacy because of social or racial factors, then they are necessarily denied educational and economic opportunities due to those same factors. Unless we are aware of the many implications of technology as literacy, we cannot positively influence the societal impacts of technology literacy. And we cannot be aware of these implications if we view technology merely as a pedagogical or money-saving tool--that is, if we do not pay attention to technology's social and cultural impacts.
While reading the essay, it is tempting to dismiss the seriousness of Selfe's claims because the "doomsday" tone makes the reader feel as though she's stating, "Unless we fix our understanding of technology literacy, Western civilization will crumble within a decade!" It's hard to think technology plays such a powerful, potentially dangerous role in society. Yet Selfe points out that technology is most dangerous when it becomes so widespread and pervasive that it "disappears." I realized that part of my urge to dismiss her claims resulted from the camoflauge of technology. Cell phones, computers, and other devices are so common that it's hard to remember when they didn't exist. It's also hard to realize just how much they've changed society until you step back and really think about it.
I'm still not entirely sure, based on Selfe's arguments, whether the racial and social gaps in technology access are caused by the conception of technology literacy and/or by academics "not paying attention." Her facts about school funding/technology inequities are dead-on, but I think these disparities are more the result of a couple decades of "White Flight" and urban degeneration and the inevitable inequality of funding schools through property taxes. If more white people have more access to technology than blacks or latinos, I am hesitant to blame this solely on a lack of "critical technology literacy" on the part of society/academics. I think the culprit lies with the way we fund public schools, the greater access to private schools and home-based technologies afforded upper-class people, and other social factors. Selfe's argument starts to break down when she narrows the issue to concepts of technological literacy and ignores even larger political, economic, social, and cultural trends. For instance, she argues that the technology literacy program instituted by Clinton and Gore was designed to produce a self-fueling economic engine driven by a highly technologically literate segment of society and a highly technologically illterate segment. But this just doesn't make sense. If the goal is creating a large market, then why create a system dependent on excluding some from that market? Further, I do not see why low-paid, low-skilled labor is essential to providing the excess labor necessary to fuel technology economy. It seems that high-skilled, high-paid labor is the only requisite.
That said, Selfe's overall point is a good one. We should pay more critical attention to literacy. However, I am not as quick to foretell doomsday.
I completely agree with Selfe when it comes to the necessity for English Professors, Writing teachers,and others to "pay attention" to technology. She argues that academics in the Humanities, particularly English and related fields, regard technology merely as a "tool" to be used or ignored according to one's pedagogical/technological preferences. Either option leads to the same result: willful ignorance of the social, cultural, and economic contexts of technology when framed as a literacy (i.e. the consequences when society formally or informally rewards/punishes people for their ability/inability to use computer technology). This willful ignorance amounts to a tacit acceptance and support of the current status quo, which consists of rampant racial and social inequality in terms of access to technology and concomitant economic opportunity. The point of technology literacy programs, Selfe reminds us, is to enhance peoples' educational and economic prospects. If people are denied technology literacy because of social or racial factors, then they are necessarily denied educational and economic opportunities due to those same factors. Unless we are aware of the many implications of technology as literacy, we cannot positively influence the societal impacts of technology literacy. And we cannot be aware of these implications if we view technology merely as a pedagogical or money-saving tool--that is, if we do not pay attention to technology's social and cultural impacts.
While reading the essay, it is tempting to dismiss the seriousness of Selfe's claims because the "doomsday" tone makes the reader feel as though she's stating, "Unless we fix our understanding of technology literacy, Western civilization will crumble within a decade!" It's hard to think technology plays such a powerful, potentially dangerous role in society. Yet Selfe points out that technology is most dangerous when it becomes so widespread and pervasive that it "disappears." I realized that part of my urge to dismiss her claims resulted from the camoflauge of technology. Cell phones, computers, and other devices are so common that it's hard to remember when they didn't exist. It's also hard to realize just how much they've changed society until you step back and really think about it.
I'm still not entirely sure, based on Selfe's arguments, whether the racial and social gaps in technology access are caused by the conception of technology literacy and/or by academics "not paying attention." Her facts about school funding/technology inequities are dead-on, but I think these disparities are more the result of a couple decades of "White Flight" and urban degeneration and the inevitable inequality of funding schools through property taxes. If more white people have more access to technology than blacks or latinos, I am hesitant to blame this solely on a lack of "critical technology literacy" on the part of society/academics. I think the culprit lies with the way we fund public schools, the greater access to private schools and home-based technologies afforded upper-class people, and other social factors. Selfe's argument starts to break down when she narrows the issue to concepts of technological literacy and ignores even larger political, economic, social, and cultural trends. For instance, she argues that the technology literacy program instituted by Clinton and Gore was designed to produce a self-fueling economic engine driven by a highly technologically literate segment of society and a highly technologically illterate segment. But this just doesn't make sense. If the goal is creating a large market, then why create a system dependent on excluding some from that market? Further, I do not see why low-paid, low-skilled labor is essential to providing the excess labor necessary to fuel technology economy. It seems that high-skilled, high-paid labor is the only requisite.
That said, Selfe's overall point is a good one. We should pay more critical attention to literacy. However, I am not as quick to foretell doomsday.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Return to Blogging
To everyone who used to read this blog and who might stumble across it again, I am returning to blogging after a long hiatus, once again for a class. This time, I'm taking Eng 625: Rhetoric of Digitial Spaces. New blog posts will feature my responses to class discussion topics, reflections on the role of technology in Composition and teaching, etc.
I chose to return to my old blog because it is already set up more or less to my liking. I will probably change the title at some point, when I can think of a suitably apt yet creative title (Eng 625 Blog just seemed soooo boring). I may change the background, but right now I'm reasonably happy with it. Just good old plain brown to mark a stark contrast with the text. Essentially, my reason for using this old blog boils down to convenience. It was already set up for me to begin blogging away.
I chose to return to my old blog because it is already set up more or less to my liking. I will probably change the title at some point, when I can think of a suitably apt yet creative title (Eng 625 Blog just seemed soooo boring). I may change the background, but right now I'm reasonably happy with it. Just good old plain brown to mark a stark contrast with the text. Essentially, my reason for using this old blog boils down to convenience. It was already set up for me to begin blogging away.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)