Back in January 2012

If you have questions about the course for Spring 2012, feel free to email me: ksteele@ou.edu

She's Using You

One mark of a strong writer is having control over one’s sources. Early in the semester, student often jam too much summary of their sources into their essays. “Why?” I ask. “Because” they often reply, “ I didn’t want to have points taken off for missing something in the reading.” This answer suggests a habit (perhaps developed in high school) of seeing a written exercise that employs sources as a test of reading comprehension. It also is related to the habit of simply drawing “information” and “quotes”* out of a text to “support your argument.”

Strong writers, while certainly having good reading comprehension, are able to signal that comprehension in a few brief sentences of summary.  Such summary provides important context for the real mental exercise: using the source to help think through a problem and extending the source in new ways.  Strong writers use the ideas of their sources to help them develop new ideas. This process is, of course, very different than simply agreeing or disagreeing.

Joseph Harris’ chapter “Forwarding” breaks down some of the ways you might employ a source by ‘forwarding’ into a new situation or context. Likewise, Graff and Birkenstein suggest that you if you are going to agree or disagree you should do so with a difference; they go on to suggest the significance of conceding good points in your sources while still staking out your own ideas and difference from the source.

Your sources, then, should challenge your original thinking, not merely support it. If you can work with a source that doesn’t line up with what you already think, there’s strong likelihood that you are also creating new ideas as you do so. In other words, USE the ideas of others to help you create new knowledge.

* Pedantic footnote: 'quotation' is the noun; 'to quote' is the verb. You put a quotation into your essay.  You quote your source.

Fuzzy Reception

If you have poked around on this blog, you might have figured out that my main research interest is reading. As a scholar I write about the reading habits of people who lived about 250 years ago, but my thinking extends to our current reading habits and, of course since I'm a college instructor, to the reading habits of college students. There is, oddly, a bit of a conflict here:  as a scholar I should, as objectively as possible, observe the trends and note the evidence.  But as a teacher, I find it difficult not to bemoan the evidence that students just don't read very much.

I confront this conflict when I read Henry Jenkins.  Like Jenkins, my scholarship focuses on reception:  how do readers--or, in his case, media users and consumers--respond to, react to, critique, and negotiate cultural products like books, tv shows, games, movies? On the one hand, I should be quite sympathetic with Jenkins' argument that "consumers and fans are beginning to take pleasure in their newfound power to shape their media environment" (233). As a scholar of historical changes in media ecology, I feel that I should more willingly embrace his notion of this coming change.  That is, I should accept his argument that the people playing online games can create connections "between game play and civic engagement" and that gamers "who share common cultural interests but not necessarily ideological perspectives might work together to arrive at 'rational' solutions to complex policy issues" (233).

But, on another level, I balk.  Can games, or photoshopping, or blogging, or amateur videos really give us the substance we need to understand what is going on in the world, or even our own country?  Don't we really need the fuller, more complex story that written words can give us--whether read in the traditional printed forms, or the newer digital forms? So on the other hand, I tend to be skeptical of arguments that assert the benefits of these changing habits in opposition to the traditional position that only the knowledge and understanding gained through reading can provide the foundation of civic engagement. In other words, some part of me is a cranky pessimist, like Postman, who would have us shut it all down and go back to reading.

Jenkins is hopeful that 'serious fun' will turn out to be real and that we will move between what is serious and what is fun with real, meaningful purpose. Online games, he hopes, can model true civic engagement and the creation of real knowledge. I want to be hopeful, too. But I'll need to see alot more evidence . . .

Works Cited
Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture. New York:  New York UP, 2006.

Research resources

http://www.nea.gov/
National Endowment for the Arts; find "Reports." Reports 46 and 47 are studies of reading habits.  


http://www.kff.org/
Lots of research on media use; much cited  Generation M studies


http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/
Cited by Jenkins on the Daily show as source for political information.


http://www.commonsensemedia.org/research
Geared toward parents and educators; very recent report on children and media use.



Two recent NY Times articles about children and media use--could be good for arguments that work with the idea of how our media environment shapes us.
Screen Time Higher Than Ever for Children
Parents Urged Again to Limit TV for Youngest 


Web-searching tools:
http://www.refseek.com/
goes directly to academic sources; filters sponsored sites

http://www.sweetsearch.com/#
websites evaluated by educators

http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/lib_instruct/riot/
tutorial for doing research; about 20 minute long ( mostly good reviews from everyone who has watched!)

http://www.noodletools.com/debbie/literacies/information/5locate/adviceengine.html
directory of various online resources by topic

http://en.linoit.com/
stickies; great for organizing  your thoughts

http://bubbl.us
brainstorming site

http://www.mindmeister.com
brainstorming with the ability to add files

http://ipl2.org/
searches websites evaluated by library professionals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

Jon Stewart on Crossfire; 15 minutes but worth it!

We

“We make some people’s troubles our business while we ignore the troubles of others.” (Ignatieff  287).

“In the Huxleyan prophecy, Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch him, by ours.” (Postman, 155)

In discussing television, and in arguing that television is inadequate for displaying complexity, discussion, or even thinking, both Ignatieff and Postman position themselves and—significantly--their readers right in the middle of the debate.  They both, in other words, make use of the first person plural:  We—Us—Our.

What does that accomplish? On the one hand, by including themselves, they forestall objections that they are being elitist. They both see themselves as part of the audience; they aren’t simply talking down to an ignorant public. They aren’t saying, stop watching tv so naively YOU silly people.  They make their readers equals—and that is a generous rhetorical move (one worth emulating).  And, for democratic societies, the use of “we” emphasizes the fact that citizens are not passive subjects:  we are, after all, responsible for creating the cultures—political, educational, artistic, media-oriented—around us.

More broadly, though, both use the first person plural in order to discuss widespread trends. I have a tv monitor and I use it occasionally to watch movies on DVD.  I haven’t had tv reception in my home in close to 15 years.  Does that mean that Postman isn’t talking to me? Does that mean that I am an exception to these trends? Maybe.  But does the fact that there are exceptions mean his argument is flawed? Probably not. I’m still part of the “we” who are, as his title puts it, “Amusing Ourselves To Death.” Maybe I see the problems more clearly—like Postman himself—but nonetheless I live in a culture that has a hard time reflecting intelligent discussion in its mass media.

George Saunders, in a reading that is optional, brilliantly discusses the problem of the relationship between exceptions and trends in audiences of mass media. His essay works by presenting a variety of vignettes about what he calls the “braindead megaphone.” In one vignette, he parodies a newscaster sending in a report about how busy parking lots are at Christmastime. He argues that such patently obvious and thoughtless stories damage our ability to think critically when more serious stories are presented in similarly superficial ways. Moreover, if the people we trust to give us real news seem to accept shallow, illogical thinking, we start to wonder about our own response. If we respond critically to what he calls “dopey communication” but our newscaster seem unconcerned  “we’ll feel a bit insane, and therefore less confident, and therefore more passive” (9).

Another vignette discusses the problem of the relationship between the exceptional person and general trends more explicitly.  Saunders imagines a village in which a vegetable that turns people red is purchased on the cheap.  If you eat a lot, you turn red, and over time, the “village will have moved toward the Red end of the spectrum” (13).  He goes on: “Within that general trend will be all sorts of variations and exceptions:  this guy eats as much as he likes of that vegetable, but just goes a little Pink; this women, who can’t stand the taste of it and never eats is, stays the same color as always.  But in general, because of the omnipresence of that vegetable, the village is going to become Redder . . .” (13). Saunders explains this parable in his essay, so I won’t (in the hope that you will read it).  What seems interesting though is the assertion that village becomes Redder—you can’t escape—or escape noticing-- the large scale cultural change even you are not, yourself Red.

Sources.

Ignatieff, Michael. “The Stories We Tell: Television and Humanitarian Aid.” Hard Choices: Moral Dilemmas in Humanitarian Intervention. Ed. Jonathan Moore. 287-302. Print.
Postman, Neil. “The Age of Show Business.”Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discussion in the Age of Show Business. New York: Penguin, 1985, 2005. 83-98; 155-163. Print.

Saunders, George. “The Braindead Megaphone.” The Braindead Megaphone. New York: Riverhead, 2007. 1-19. Print.

Research reminders

Here are a few reminders from our library session last week:

Don't use main search box on first page of library site--not all databases are searched; slow; sorts results in a non-useful way.

Go directly to Databases.  EBSCO is a key set of databases. Within EBSCO, particular databases you might find useful for the assignment are:

• Communication and Mass Media
• Communication Abstracts
• Academic Source Premier
• Business Source
• PsychInfo
• SocIndex
• Newspaper Source

You can also go directly to these databases--useful if you want to search newspapers only, for example.

A second major collection of databases is ABI/Inform

Google Scholar:  If you are signed in through OU, you shouldn't have to pay. Only updated a few times a year. Possibly subject to manipulation.  BUT, a good source to help you narrow your search since it uses more 'natural language.'

Don't forget that help is available:  You can call the library (number on the "Ask Us" tab), or stop by the reference desk.  I am available for helping you, too!

Allow yourself plenty of time--you may have to wait for an ILL or a recalled book.

Don't forget to search for books--they can be quicker than scrolling through page after page of article results.  Once you are in the right area for a book on your topic you may stumble upon a treasure trove of material!

Please send me additional tips, or put them in the comment box.

Making up

If you've read my profile you know that one of my hobbies is knitting. Here's what I'm working on now.  Without getting too technical (for those of you not fascinated by textiles) this triangular scarf starts at one end with just four stitches and increases gradually by adding a stitch every few rows.  At the point pictured, there are about 50 stitches across; it will be over 100 across the row by the time it is finished.

I've put this up because it might represent one way to think about what you do when you "make an argument." We've talked about argument, and about what constitutes an arguable claim or thesis, but what I want to point out is that "make" really means create or write. You make an argument, not by simply finding quotations that back up your thesis, but by showing how the ideas--the component parts of your argument--are related. This is why the strategy of "stitching" is so important--as you take an idea forward and connect to a new idea, you are actually building something new.  

If you aren't into textiles, feel free to stop here. But I just wanted to point out that knitting is actually created by pulling one loop of yarn through another loop--just as ideas should be looped together, an old part picking up a new part but still  moving forward. Sound familiar?

Birkerts

I've been reading Sven Birkerts' essay, "Into the Electronic Millennium," this afternoon. I'm always amazed, when I read this essay, that it was written in 1994-- some 17 years ago. (In fact, there might even be a student or two in the class who is younger than this essay!)

While there are some awkward moments that date the essay--the limitation of the e-reader he discusses to one book, for example--his ideas remain pertinent.  It is still difficult, maybe even more difficult, to see how the web of electronic communication is surrounding us.  Certain of his predictions--banking by phone, for example--have recently come to be realities, but have we really progressed in thinking about what that means?

As a writing teacher, Birkerts' observations about language erosion and changes in education naturally interest me.  And again, I'm surprised by how current this argument sounds.  It's true that we have made some significant strides in using new technologies in education. Certainly we now know ways beyond making little videos to use the energy of networks and collaboration to foster new kinds of thinking.  But the arguments remain: should education "tailor itself to the aptitudes of its students" (125)?  Or should education--perhaps using some new technologies--continue to hold students responsible for genuinely significant ideas, ideas that require sustained attention to the written word (no matter how it might be accessed)?

That attention, of course, brings me to Birkerts' prediction that there will be ongoing language erosion. Recent studies seem to confirm his prediction--but we aren't in an entirely language-poor world yet.  Are we? Are we going there or are there trends that are stopping us from really going down that road? In any event, his framing of this question, and his careful reflections upon it, make him entirely relevant to 2011.

Banned Books

In the fall semester, Banned Books week (starts Sept 24 this year) always falls around Unit 2--just as we are discussing some of the long term and large scale effects of reading.

It seems like an important moment to remember that literacy has not always been easy to come by--and still isn't in some places in the world. It also seems like a good moment to remember that many people, both through time and in the present day, have been/ are actively prohibited from learning to read. Some of those who can read have been / are actively prohibited from having choice about what they read. In this country, most book challenges are made in school libraries--ostensibly to protect children-- but worldwide, censorship at all levels is alive and well.

 So read a banned book!

Or look at the lists of banned/ challenged books and see which ones you have already read.

banned books week, american library association

banned and challenged classics

challenged books by year (you'll be surprised!)

Print Technology

Here are a few videos that show what printing and typesetting looked like in the early days of print.  Compare this to hitting the 'print' button!
demo of hand press
typesetting video
typesetting video (2)

Print and thinking

In Understanding Media, McLuhan writes that print (or typography, to use his term) "had psychic and social consequences that suddenly shifted previous boundaries and patterns of culture" (233).  We can, with some thought about the historical period he is discussing, grasp what he mean by shifting social boundaries. But "psychic"?? It's a wacky word with supernatural connotations.Careful reading of the rest of McLuhan's chapter suggests that he is really thinking about thinking: print makes it possible to think in new ways.

Of course, from Plato to McLuhan and including hundreds of commentators in between, people have wondered and worried about what forms of media might do to our minds. It is only relatively recently, though, that scientists have had the tools to actually study what happens in the brain when it encounters and processes different forms of media stimulation.

As Hayles notes in the class reading ("Hyper and Deep Attention"), all of the evidence from a variety of branches of science suggest that there are changes in the brain when it encounters various media stimulation:  "the brain's synaptic connections are evolving with an environment in which media consumption is a dominant factor"  (192).  But as she points out, to note that we can now see  such changes (with technology like the functional MRI) is not the same as evaluating the changes, or evaluating which kinds of attention, hyper or deep, we should cultivate. In fact, she argues, we need to be more conscious of how we might deploy both kinds of attention. She uses the example of video games, then, as one way we might "buil[d] bridges between deep and hyper attention" (114).

What do you think of the idea of using video games in classrooms? Does this argument seem persuasive to you? More importantly perhaps, she suggests that hyper attention evolved before deep attention; other scholars note that reading is a very unnatural act for our brains to master.  Should we let our brains do what seems to come more naturally, using games in education for example? Or should we carefully train them?

More McLuhan

McLuhan can be difficult--as we discussed in class, this is often because he moves between different moments in time (different stages of history) within the same paragraph or sentence. So, as you review and start to work with McLuhan's ideas, you should ask yourself the following three questions:  

• Is this phrase/sentence discussing the time before print? 
• Is it discussing the explosion of print? 
• Or is it discussing the implosion of electric communication?

For the essay assignment in Unit 2, you should also focus on the specific "social and psychic consequences" of print.  A brief list would include:

• spread of knowledge and ideas
• shattering tribal bonds (questioning traditional, hierarchical structures of power and social organization)
• emergence /strengthening of individuality
• individual self-expression; change in the idea of authorship
• private point of view
• acting without reacting (detachment, dissociation, objectivity, analytic thought) [key]
• transparency and openness based on repeatable, regular printed materials (think school and laws)

Questions you might start to ask as you move into writing your own essay might include:

• What are the dangers (the 'torpedoes' in McLuhan's final image) that moving forward might expose us to?
• What do we stand to lose or gain by moving into the use of 'newer' media? Are we becoming a global village? Are there costs for entering the global village? 
• McLuhan tells us not to panic about the threat of new media, but could he be wrong? Are there reasons to panic?

McLuhan

I'll post more about McLuhan and our new readings later this week, but in the meantime, here's the link to a previous post with further links to  videos about McLuhan.
McLuhan videos

Writing Advice

My last post was trying to make this point: take all writing advice (even advice masquerading as a 'rule') under advisement. Don't let rules stop you from being clear.


This last bit is something of a paraphrase from a well-known essay by George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language." As he writes, after providing his own list of rules, "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous." *


The essay is often standard reading for college writing students; you can find a copy here--or in any library! And you can find a discussion of it here, by a colleague of mine who used to teach at OU and now teaches in California. His blog is listed on the right.


I encourage you to not only check out his blog, but to investigate other online resources that might help you think about your writing.  I have already mentioned the Grammar Girl; the OU Writing Center (with links to citation guides) is here and I will be adding more links (see pages to the right) as I find good resources.  Let me know if you find a good online resource.


* From A Collection of Essays, Harcourt (1946, 1981), 170.

Rules, Rules, Rules

Or maybe not. There are rules that everyone who writes has to follow--usage rules, like the difference between affect and effect, or grammatical rules like the fact that a sentence must have a subject and a verb.** 

But I’m always astonished at the kinds of rules students tell me that other writing teachers imposed upon them.  I certainly don't want to attack other writing instructors--especially teachers in public high schools who are often dealing with well over a hundred students at a time. And  I sense the logic behind some rules--forbidding “I” might make students more likely to argue rather than assert unfounded positions. But some I can’t fathom at all--don’t use contractions ( I suppose they say “do not use contractions”), don’t use “because,” never start a sentence with “but”  or “and.” What really gets me about some of these rules that students seem to carry around in their heads is that is STOPS them from writing--and often stops them from writing clearly.  If you have to torture a sentence to avoid a perfectly good work ( like “I” or “but” or “we”), it often makes the already hard work of writing even harder.

Again, I’m not writing this to criticize other teachers, because I think ALL writing practice is good.  And maybe the discipline of being told DON’T DO THIS, whatever this is, is helpful, too.

Perhaps I’m just too freethinking, but I have very few rules, and I’m certainly not interested in creating a lot of strange little arbitrary rules. General approaches seem more useful and take into account the fact that individuals are, well, individual.  If you want to challenge one of my general approaches and you have a good reason, I’ll be open to that. 

In fact, if I do have a rule it is this: know what choices you’ve made in your writing and be able to defend them.  Used a strange word, or a used a word in an unusual manner? Fine, as long as you say, or suggest, why (in whatever you are writing). Don’t have a thesis statement? Ok, as long as your argument is crystal clear from the body paragraphs. Want to write a one sentence paragraph? Go for it, as long as that brevity is warranted by its position in the development of your argument.

I have a few pet peeves based on widespread misuses (number v. amount  is one, I may reveal more in later posts), but here is my general advice (advice--not rules!): 

• You should do whatever you need to do to write in a way that sounds like you at your most articulate. Write in your own voice, not a colloquial, slangy voice, but the voice you would use if you could have 5 minutes to think through every thing you say.    
• You should do whatever you need to do to write in a way that reflects your best thinking. That thinking should be reflected in grammatical sentences--syntax, as Stanley Fish tells us being a way of logically organizing the world. *

Finally: Don’t censor yourself by trying to avoid this word, or that kind of construction, or by following a formula that isn't helping. 


What are some rules you've learned about writing? Were they helpful or are they rules you are ready to break?
***************

** Some very good writers frequently use sentence fragments --but this is one of those cases where you really have to know the rule before you can break it! Also, confused about affect v effect? Check this out:grammar girl on affect/effect
* In How to Write a Sentence (Harper Collins)

Great Expectations

Unit 1 is the most difficult and exhausting unit of the semester. First there are just the logistical issues--When is this due? What’s the difference between our prelims and the conference draft? What’s a conference? Where’s your office? When is the final draft due again? And why is Plato so worked up about writing anyway???

Somewhere, in all of this, I am supposed to answer this question:  What exactly, is an academic essay?

If I seem breathless in class, it’s only because I’m trying to preview an entire semester’s worth of ideas about expository writing.  Now’s the time to take a bit of a breather, let some of this settle down and focus in on the two key aspects of writing an academic essay that are most important for essay 1--and, I would argue, probably the most fundamental elements of academic essays in general.  They are your argument and your use of sources.** Get these right, and (almost) everything else follows.

Use of sources.  The academic essay starts with the assumption that there are ideas in the world outside of your head. Your sources are not just providing “quotes to back up your ideas”; rather, they should help you to develop new ideas and new ways of thinking about problems. Generally speaking, if someone does research with an "answer" or argument in mind, we would probably suggest that that person is a bit close-minded, maybe even biased. So, when working with sources keep an open mind, learn from them, and let them teach you something. At the most basic level, this involves being able to neutrally summarize.

Your argument.  But thinking should never stop with thoroughly understanding a source--rather it only starts there. Moreover, argument goes well beyond simply agreeing or disagreeing. As you build an argument in conversation with your sources, think about how ideas are useful, or how perspectives might be limited or qualified. Think about how an idea might be right, but only in some cases, or up to a certain point. For this first unit, I ask you to consider what you, as a person living in 2011, can add to Plato’s concerns about writing.  We live in a culture that places enormous significance on writing and yet many of Plato’s concerns and warning ring true.  So how do YOU add to our knowledge about the world by building on and extending his ideas? 

So, to sum up, here’s the bottom line for unit 1:

Argument/ project.  Do you know what you are arguing? Does your essay follow through on that? Strong claims throughout help--that’s why we’ve focused on them so much. Do you state your argument (thesis statement) early on? Does the opening move (a paragraph or two) of your essay help set up your argument and what’s at stake in your argument? Are there places along the way where it is echoed in your claims? Why should we care about your argument? Do you suggest an answer to the “So What” question? Does your essay take a position that moves beyond summary and even beyond simply agreeing or disagreeing to work in conversation with your source?

Sources: Do you explain your source/s to your reader? Do you show how your thinking builds on, develops from, or works in conversation with sources? Do you show how your thinking is different from your source? All of the work with context, orienting (or framing quotations) and explaining and analyzing passages is part of this process of moving from the source to your own ideas.

To reiterate, here’s the list:

Strong opener that sets up argument and suggests why your argument matters.

Thesis statement.

Strong claims in most paragraphs that echo the thesis statement.

Framed, or contextualized citations (set up the source for your reader).

Explanation or analysis of the source (show how you interpret the source and how it relates your argument).

* They Say/ I say is a deceptively simple book, but you should notice that these two elements are the ones represented by the title of the book.

Why I Love My Job

Conferences. Really. It's true that conferences mean that I might have to get up at 5 am to read and comment on drafts and I'll still be talking with a student at 7 that evening, but conferences are the best part of my job. I get to talk to people about ideas--and I get paid for that!

In spite of the work they require, and the exhaustion that sets in after talking and listening for hours and hours, conferences are are exciting because they allow us to glimpse those great ideas that are behind an essay--and that, no matter how much it's revised, an essay only partially captures. Conferences are all about potential.

Even though we talk about how to capture those fleeting ideas in writing, in the conference that frustration is held at bay for a while.  Likewise, the fact that I eventually have to grade each essay (something I hate) can be pushed aside as we focus on thinking and developing thoughts.

It also seems that conferences model the exchange of ideas that is, I believe, the best reason for the existence of universities--knowledge being created as individuals listen to each other and build their ideas.

Well Wrought Urns

In my last post I talked about how disordered the world seems because my vision is temporarily impaired.  At the same time (and somewhat ironically), in class last week I tried to describe how one might think about the overall shape of an essay--and all the different parts of an essay--as a building.  In other words, I was trying to provide a visual metaphor for thinking about essay structures and organization. 


Because I think about and read and write essays often, this kind of thinking comes fairly naturally to me.  In my building metaphor, I suggested that we might see the elevator shaft as the central thesis, while each floor could be a different source (or a different aspect of the same source).  The ever changing view from each floor evokes the way an essay can look at different angles of a problem--explore a complication or an implication, acknowledge the validity of a counterargument, or turn to look more closely at, and define or explain, what a key term means. The building metaphor also allows us to think, importantly, about the way our view of the initial problem is very different when we are at the top of the building than when we were on the ground floor.


People sometimes compare essays to roads.  Again we can see again the way the image allows us to see  development along a  pathway, but one that allows for side trips down smaller pathways, an ever changing view, and finally a destination that is not the same place we started.

When I think about my own writing and revising process, however, I most often think about my draft as a lump of clay that has to be smoothed and shaped; at some places odd bits of clay must be tossed aside while at others fresh clay needs to be added.  The traditional shape of a vase works well with the idea that an essay opens itself, by the end, to some new perspectives, while remaining closely bound to a central argument.  I'm thinking here of the way vases narrow at the neck and then bloom open again; in fact vases do that twice--starting with a foot (motive?), narrowing a bit (thesis?) and then opening up most fully in the middle (where I imagine the fullest discussions of a topic to occur).


But, all roads are not straight, and all buildings are not modern, straight up and down skyscrapers and all vases are not symmetrical.  What does your essay look like to you?

There brians posses grate abilties

There? Their? 


No, this isn't going to be a post about commonly confused spellings--or other 'pet peeves' of writing instructors. (But, if you want some excellent, easy to understand advice on commonly confused words and spellings, punctuation rules, and so on, check out the Grammar Girl.)


I have a recurring eye condition that causes blurry vision and pain.  But even before the pain starts--even before I consciously know that this inflammation has flared up again--I start misspelling words, like 'there' and 'their.' Believe me, it is extraordinarily disturbing for a person who reads, writes, and teaches reading and writing for a living to suddenly find herself making 6th grade level errors! Or do we learn that in 4th grade . . . .?

 I only know a bit about what happens in our brain when we read--but, as Stanislas Dehaene writes, reading "starts in our eyes."  The image of the word is processed by-or travels through-- several different areas of our brain as our complex "visual system progressively extracts graphemes, syllables, prefixes, suffixes, and word roots" (11;  if you are interested, Dehaene's Reading in the Brain is an accessible discussion of this subject). We spend years training these pathways as we learn to read. 

Cognitive neuroscientists often discover how the brain works by studying people with problems.  For example, by looking at the brain of someone who has lost the ability to read after a stroke, they can more closely pinpoint areas of the brain that is involved in the reading process (Dehaene 54-71).  So, I’m sure they could tell me more precisely what happens when I lose my ability to spell as my vision becomes compromised. They could also explain why you probably understood the title of this post even though each word is misspelled.

But, since I'm not a cognitive neuroscientist, I'm more interested in the implications of this problem at a moment when our culture seems to be moving away from written words. Losing the ability to spell seems minor, but the fact that it happens so quickly on an individual level, in someone who spends so much time with words, seems to have disturbing implications.

Reading isn’t natural for humans (isn’t that one of Plato’s points? Interesting that he saw that well before the neuroscientists.). Suddenly losing part of this ability makes it seem very fragile, indeed.  How fast could an entire society lost their ability to read if they didn’t practice it frequently?

I find that not only is my spelling bad during these spells, but my sense of logic and organization feels fuzzy--somehow I need to have a visual sense of how ideas are laid out, and blurred vision blurs the order of the world for me. To gesture again toward larger implications, if we spend lots of time with images--which can come at us all at once, or be arranged in juxtaposition, rather than linearly--does that change our sense of how the world is ordered? Is that necessarily bad?

Avoiding the blank page

Last winter I wrote about finally finishing an article after working on it for about seven years (you can read about that here). I am now in the position of finding and working new writing projects.  Although I love research and working out new lines of thinking, I much prefer the revision process to getting started. A blank page is daunting! 


Many students don't like the fact that I assign the essay topic and direction.  But what would you write about if I just said, "Go off and write an argumentative essay"? How would you make key decisions:  What is the topic of this essay? What is the scope of this essay? What other voices and sources should I bring in? To whom should I imagine I am writing? What is the central question I want to explore?  At one point should I stop reading and start writing? If you think about all of these choices, you might thank me for limiting your options some!


Since I'm no longer a student, no one is telling me what to write, or giving me deadlines.  My writing is all self directed and that actually makes it harder to get started.  Right now, I'm trying to make a start on several different projects:  a conference paper, a new course,two journal articles, and revisions to a longer book project. I'm a bit overwhelmed as I try to bite off little chunks of this work, and do the research, narrow my focus, and find my arguments.  


Some of what I do might be useful for you to consider as you get started on your first paper for this class. For example, I spent some time this weekend talking over one of my ideas for a new course with someone. It sharpened my focus and let me see some unproductive directions and dead ends.  I also keep a notebook handy whenever I read anything--even if it's not "officially" research.  No matter what I read, I find that ideas crop up that I can use in my own writing and I want to capture them right away. In fact, I keep my notebook handy all the time since relevant ideas tend to appear in the most unusual places.  While riding the bus, or waiting at an appointment, I often work on idea maps--just words clusters or lists that I later review when I am actually writing.


Since I try to do bits of writing and thinking all through each day, when I sit down to write, I don't have to face a truly blank page. It takes a bit of the pressure off . . . 


I like pens and paper notebooks for all of this, but can the many tiny new devices we all carry now help us keep track of our thinking as well as helping us keep track of--and in touch with--the people in our lives?

Writing On Plato

Earlier in this blog I wrote about my love of (obsession with?)  office supplies.  I especially like colored ink pens and I really, really like using colored ink pens to write on xeroxes of readings!  Why? Well, colored pens are easier to read than pencil.  When I was an undergraduate I used to write all of my marginal notes in pencil--I guess I had more respect for books back then?  But now I go back to those texts and I can barely read the faded notes.  Maybe that's not so bad, maybe that forces me to carefully re-read and make new notes. Are notes a way of responding and questioning?  That's one of the questions I was getting at in my last post.  I sort of think they are--although I'm not convinced it is really the same as being able to talk to the writer of a text in person. (Which writer would you like to talk to?)

Here's what part of this week's reading looks like in my copy of the course packet. I'd like to continue the argument I made in class about the importance of annotating by taking you through some of the process I went through.  


We never really read the same text twice because what we bring to the text changes.  For example, in planning this semester, I've been thinking about problems of serious discussion as opposed to entertainment (look for this in Unit 3!).  In reading this page of Plato, I saw the distinction between earnestness and play in a new, and newly important (to me) way.


What else happened as I read?  The first thing I underlined is the word father; here I was reminding myself that Plato is comparing artists or writers to fathers; artwork or texts are like children. This isn't a complicated metaphor--it's used all the time--but since he keeps going with it, it seemed key to give myself that visual reminder. It's a sort of mental shortcut.


As you can see, I got kind of excited in the middle of the page when he started talking about a word that "knows to whom it should speak and before whom to be silent."  This is the thinking, or prethinking, that went into my last post. You can see that I was trying to make connections between the different uses of "know" and the issue of living people, or living audiences:  knowledge, as Phaedrus comments, that seems to "mean the living and breathing word of him who knows."  At the same time, I started to see a connection between these ideas of audience and the distinction between the writer/ speaker's intention as either earnest or delightful and amusing.  


Is all of my thinking worked out?  Absolutely not, but when I went back to my notes to write up the last post, I found I had alot to say!

(Re)Reading Plato

Although I've known about the bit of Plato's Phaedrus known as the critique of writing for years, I didn't actually read it until I started teaching it a  few years ago (a terrible admission!).  But every time I re-read it  I am amazed and happy that I finally discovered it for myself.  I genuinely learn something new every time I read it.  This time around I've noticed two things about my response to Plato:  that this is a critique in the true sense of that word and that Plato is very concerned about audiences--or, as I would think about it, readers.


Many people may consider a 'critique' to be something that just points out weaknesses. But to think critically about something (and then to produce a critique) means, of course, to be skeptical and reveal problems or flaws, but it also means acknowledging what is good and right in a work (textual or otherwise).  So while it is true that Plato is worried that people might start valuing writing more than real, embodied knowledge, he also admits that there can be serious intentions in writing and that it might be useful to have a written reminder sometimes.


This way Plato characterizes the relationship between writer and reader, though, is what really struck me this time around. The line of thinking appears throughout, but emerges quite clearly when he compares writing to painting--both paintings and texts are 'silent.' The key difference between audience and reader or viewer hinges on this silence--audiences, composed of living people can clap, or cheer; in a live performance (let's imagine a musical performance), the performer might become more animated and give a better performance, send a shout out to the audience, take requests.  Or, to take another example, isn't the excitement of the crowd why football teams do better at home games? How does this work at movies? Does the responsiveness of the audience matter at a play?


Plato follows this up later by suggesting that written discourse that doesn't allow "opportunity for questioning or teaching" should not be "treated very seriously."  Here he seems to suggest the importance of that living response--the questions, the teacher responding to questions. Writing stops that live process--or so he seems to suggest. Does writing have to stop our questioning even if the writer can't talk back? Do books stop our questioning? Does new media?

See You in the Fall

Expos Observer is on vacation until the Fall 2011 semester.

Guest Post: Patrick

If you were a gambler by nature, where would you say most Americans get their political and current events information? America is the haven for media outlets. Americans constantly have access to many different types of media such as: newspaper, radio, TV, magazines, internet, and pamphlets, to just name a few. Steven Chaffee, chairman of the Department of Communications at Stanford focused his studies primarily on the role of politics in mass communication and Stacey Franks wrote How Americans Get Political Information: Print Versus Broadcast News. In their research, they question the effectiveness of broadcast news to thoroughly inform the viewer in current events and politics. They argued, “Print media is consulted more often than television by people who are actively seeking information.” This statistic implies that individuals who really want to know the truth and want to get to the bottom of what’s going on and already have a good basis of information are reading their political and current events information via print media. While, “Television reaches groups that tend to lack political information, such as young people, immigrants, and less interested citizens” (Chaffee 48). This means that those who are just mildly interested are turning to the television as their main source of information. 

 I would argue we see this casual turn to the television to learn about politics, because everything is so much easier if you’re watching it on television. A commentator can tell you what you need to know and you don’t have to read it, which we can all agree would take more effort. So it comes down to how bad you want to stay informed to decide where you get your information.

Am I Beautiful Yet

This is a link to a project a former student did this spring. It doesn't necessarily have much to do with media change, but it's an interesting example of making an argument through various visual elements.
Am I Beautiful Yet?

Guest Post: Emily

Have you ever played an aggressive video and then felt a little aggressive afterwards? According to some researchers, this is normal. Violent and aggressive video games tend to make a person more aggressive and more reckless. Some people even go as far as to take dangerous risks that do not lead to useful results. These are the games that people will automatically relate to shootings or aggressive behaviors in school though these video games are not the only reason for this. The way the person is treated can lead to aggressiveness also. Video games are more of just a scapegoat for this. Henry Jenkins talks about this when he has to give a testimony for the Columbine shootings. He talks about how people will relate violent video games to aggressive behavior automatically because they do not understand the game; they just know the game encourages the player to kill people and be aggressive to other players. Taking the time to learn about the different violent video games will show that these games do not just encourage violent behavior but also help the player develop skills like problem solving and rational choice; some video games rely on your choice to determine what the rest of the video game will be like.

 Link to Professor Jenkins Goes to Washington: http://stuff.mit.edu/people/cshiley/Content/NotMine/jenkins.html 

Guest Post: Ryan

future of media
In my procrastination of final studying, I stumbled upon this image from futureofmediaevents.com. When I look at this map, it alarms me for a few reasons. Firstly, I had always dreamed of working at a newspaper when I grew up. I currently work at The Oklahoma Daily and I get a rush when I see my name in print once or twice a week. Now, I just hope that there will be print by the time I start my professional career.

In this course we have discussed how media have changed throughout centuries. In the first unit we discussed Plato and his critique of writing. While Plato was critical of writing, I don’t think that many people have been very critical of new media as a whole. New media have been embraced so quickly and thoroughly that we are completely abandoning the way we previously conducted ourselves. I am as guilty, if not more than, anyone. I used to rush outside to get my local paper each morning. Now, I sluggishly move to my laptop and check my RSS feed.

The main thing that alarms me when I look at this map is the speed at which new media have been taking over. Writing took centuries to catch on. Some people today still can’t read or write. New media, however, have only taken a few decades to make their mark. If newspapers will be gone by around 2040, what else may we lose in such a short time?

Guest post: Todd and Alex

Here is a link to a 16 minute short film my brother and I did about changes in technology. It is about a salesman in the 1960's who is trying to sell a product to a town whose inability to accept change makes him question his machine's audience. As a side note, this film won best film at the OU CAC Film Festival this year. Enjoy!

http://vimeo.com/16327087

[note: if the link doesn't work, go directly to vimeo.com and put "Innovative, Greenlee" in the search box.]

Guest Post: Connor

As everyone has been finishing up their research essays, I started wondering whether being able to research using the internet has changed the way we do it. Certainly it’s more convenient to simply go to the database and find some articles than the old days when you would have to actually go and find the book or journal you needed. When people like Carr criticize the internet for making us less intellectually rigorous, maybe they’re right, but surely we can see around us the benefits that are also provided. In writing my paper, I wound up including information from sources as varied as government researchers and German universities; would this even be possible without the internet to allow us to share this abundance of information and knowledge?

Of course, the problem here is that for the most part we don’t use it that way. Sure, when you need to write a paper for class you go on and find great swathes of knowledge surpassing anything in the past; when you use the internet for fun you end up on Facebook or something similar. I may be wrong about this, but it seems like the internet is a kind of dichotomy: when we use it seriously, it is maybe even more useful than traditional media – when we use it for leisure, it is far worse. I just feel that we get more out of reading for leisure than we do from surfing the web; what do you think?

Guest Post: Nina

I came across an article on the humor website Cracked.com entitled “7 Reasons the 21st Century is Making You Miserable.”

http://www.cracked.com/article_15231_7-reasons-21st-century-making-you-miserable.html

This is intended to be a humorous article and has some offensive language, but I think it touches upon a lot of the ideas we discuss in class. The author basically cites 7 ways technology is making people unhappy compared to those 50 years ago. One of his major reasons for society’s unhappiness that I thought was interesting was the fact that we don’t encounter enough annoyance in our lives. The media has made it possible for a person to tune out all the frustrations he or she encounters daily. For one, the Internet allows almost everything to be done online, in the comfort and solitude of your own home. No longer do you need to wait in long lines and deal with a disgruntled employee at Walmart. You can even buy a CD and have it directly uploaded to your computer without having to sit through traffic at a bunch of red lights on your way to a music store.

He also points out that because of cell phones and iPod’s, we can avoid all the discomfort and inconvenience of small talk or even boredom. I know every time I have to walk around on campus I have my headphones in to make the time pass faster and more enjoyably, and when I’m waiting at the doctor’s office or something, I always try to find a friend to text or a level of Angry Birds to beat.

This author argues that building up a tolerance for annoyances makes you a happier person because you don’t get irritated as easily and you can let little things go. In the article he claims that, as a whole, people 50 years ago were generally happier with their lives and had more close friends. I wonder if he’s right, and that filtering out the annoyances in our lives just makes us less able to handle the irritating situations that we can’t avoid.

Guest Post by Colin: Keeping up with Social Networks

Have people taken social networks too far? I ask this question because with so many social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr etc., people ridicule those who spend all their time on these sites instead of doing something productive. I can honestly say that I do spend a lot of time on Facebook just like many of my friends. All of these websites are included in the term new media, and I am not sure if that is a bad thing or not. Is it strange that I have constant radar on my friends through Facebook, or that I can see where my friends are at all times? Has it brought people closer together or just made us bounded to our computer at all times? 

This video (http://youtu.be/zSP8xm_gaK4)  makes fun of people that are constantly on these types of websites, and they are called “New Media Douchebags” (it is a little offensive). It seems that if you are not part of certain social networks that you are missing out on something, but do people like “New Media Douchebags” who are constantly on these sites take it too far? I’m all for new advancements in new media, but is this the direction that it should be taking with websites like Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr. These websites are great for keeping in contact with old friends, or getting an idea out there, and even sharing information but it seems that those are the minor uses for these websites. If you are not tweeting or poking someone on Facebook or liking someone’s status you might be behind on the new media spectrum, but then again you might get called a “New Media Douchebag”.

Guest Post: Daron

I found an article posted a few days ago on PBS’ “mediashift” section of their website.  I figure it can’t get more fitting for our class blog than that. 

Here’s the link: http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2011/04/many-journalism-schools-put-minimal-effort-into-facebook-pages101.html

The gist of the article (as you can probably tell by the title) is that journalism programs aren’t putting enough effort into their facebook pages.  That seems a bit ridiculous when you consider how heavily universities are concentrating on teaching digital and social media.  I know there are a few in our class studying some facet of journalism, but this is relevant to a number of majors, if only for student communication and discussion.  I’m surprised we’re not using facebook pages as a greater means of rating or discussing professors and classes—or at least using it to collect students’ votes on issues.  The professor rating idea could obviously be a bit of an issue because of whom the gatekeeper or primary amender of information is for each page, but whatever—not the point.  The point is, why wouldn’t we (or more specifically, journalism students) be using facebook as a means of communicating information?  Is this weak ties idea really the issue?  I’m thinking it could just be laziness on our parts; we don’t want to get on facebook to be productive.  That’s what google’s for, right?  Still, seems strange the top Journalism colleges aren’t getting with it.  I also think we should be on Jennifer Paull’s “top ‘J-school’ list”, but oh well.  

New Media and Politics (Anonymous guest post)

The media today is capable of influencing people's opinions in a number of ways, whether it be through pictures, videos, or just over the television. Since most Americans don’t have a close relationship with Presidential Candidates for example, we depend on the media to effectively portray this person too us to help us determine the candidate we think would do the best job. However the media is notorious for stretching the truth, and using certain techniques that they know will trigger our liking. For instance, in the photo below, Obama was potrayed in red white and blue with a very strong word beneath. The people who created this image knew that using very patriotic colors and a strong word which makes us think of possible good change will hit the homes of many Americans and sway their vote in that direction.

http://obeygiant.com/headlines/obama-hope

Guest Post: Macey

In high school I was constantly up to date with everything going on in the news and entertainment world. I would read the paper at least once a week and I was constantly on facebook. Needless to say I was very up to date on current events and I was constantly surrounded by electronic media. Since I have come to college my contact with television, and the newspaper has dwindled. My room mates and I never turn our television on and I have not picked up a paper once since I have been here. I went from knowing everything about current events to not even being able to tell you one thing about what was going on outside of campus. For example the only reason I knew an earthquake had destroyed Japan was because I saw someone post about it on Facebook. I began to think that media was only limited to technology, and since the only thing I was using that was electronic was my lap top, to do homework and facebook, I felt as if I was no longer surrounded by media. As a result of this class however, and my intro to mass comm class, I have learned that media is literally everywhere we go. We are constantly around it even if you do not watch even five minutes of television. There are advertisements telling you where to be or who to vote for on the sidewalk you are walking on. There are posters on every wall, window or light pole you pass by. The examples could go on and on! We are constantly surrounded by media and we do not even realize it!

Guest blogger Christine: Purposelessly Online

In the past couple of weeks, we’ve talked about new technology and its effects on social activism – how we’ve gone from the kind of life-risking activism it took to effect the Civil Rights Act to the kind of activism that only takes sending a text message to donate ten dollars to the Japan tsunami relief. In thinking about the upcoming essay, I’ve been considering how this has had an effect on the sense of purpose we feel as individuals. Let me explain: dictionary.com defines purpose as “the reason for which something exists” or its “practical result, effect, or advantage.” Not everyone will agree, but I think that having a sense of purpose is vital to living a peaceful and happy life; knowing your purpose in relation to your family and community is key to being content with your career, family roles, and other relationships.

So I’m wondering if there’s any connection between the sense of purpose we feel and the amount of time we spend online. Whereas there are benefits to being on Facebook and Twitter like connection to others, especially those who live far away, and convenient communication, I have to believe that Turkle was right when she said that new technology encourages us to have the “illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship” (Turkle CP200). We like Facebook and E-mail and other forms of digital communication, because they are convenient andeasy, not because they necessarily encourage better and stronger connections with people. I worry that in the pursuit of faster and easier, we sacrifice meaningful and substantial.

I think one of the main points Gladwell was getting at when talking about “strong-tie” versus “loose-tie” activism (Gladwell CP193-195) was that being part of an online community is not the same thing as being part of a close-knit group of friends, and it does not have the same benefits and outcomes. Joining an event on Facebook doesn’t mean you’re passionate about its cause or care at all for that matter. Tweeting “pray for Japan” doesn’t mean you’re on your knees begging for God’s blessing on Asia or that you’ve done anything to help the cause. If these are the things that being an “activist” or bettering humanity is about, then it’s no wonder we should lack a sense of purpose. Being online requires no passion, it requires no real friendship, no true knowledge of your cause, no true sense of self. These are things that are vital to prospering and bettering ourselves and others, and while being online doesn’t necessarily contradict those things, it doesn’t exactly encourage them either. New technology has allowed us to reach out further and in greater measure than ever before. But if we’re not careful, I feel like we may lose ourselves in the convenience of it all.

Guest Post: "Tweet Tweet" by Marquis

The world has come a long way from the days of having to write letters in order to communicate over long distances. In this year of 2011 there are now several different ways of communicating and recently one of the more popular ways has been via Twitter. Twitter, the site where you can keep up with the thoughts of your favorite celebrities and stay updated on the news of the world.

I joined Twitter a year ago and I understand the attraction to it. It's fun to be able to stand on your own "soapbox" and voice your opinion to your "followers and people that you follow. I would describe twitter almost as a chat room. I've been able to talk with a many friends and people I've met from the past. I've also been able to chat with people I've never met before just because we share common interests.

Twitter is also good for staying in touch with some of the events going on in the world. If a large amount of people found something interesting or news worthy, you better believe it will be "trending" worldwide. I found out about the Japan earthquake and tsunamis via Twitter. I wouldn't be surprised if Twitter eventually becomes the number one destination for many people who seek the latest news. But would it be a good thing for people to choose Twitter as their prime choice for news? I suppose only time will tell.

Guest Post: Tim (1 Hour Video Game Experience)

            Flash games are becoming more prevalent in American culture, whether it be on your smartphone or laptop almost everyone plays them. The games can usually be played for 5 minutes to 5 hours at a time and are presented in a form that is easily accessible to many audiences. As these games become more accepted by society the designers are beginning to create educational games in a format that people enjoy. I recently came across one such game which I found to be enjoyable and even forced me to recall Biology I had not learned in 8 years. The game teaches the functions of the cell in an entertaining format. I suggest you follow the link included and play the game before continuing so that you can form your own experience and opinions.

cell craft

            The questions that occurred to me after playing were abundant and especially after taking this class. First off I was curious why parts spontaneously “spawning” on the game field as if to suggest a creationist theme. This made me wonder who designed the game and their motivation to create it in this fashion. I research both of these questions and I found many people also had the same concerns as myself. The following link is a critical review of the game and the source of its genesis.
cell craft review

            In response to such claims the lead programmer of the game actually responded in a lengthy forum post which can be found on the game’s webpage listed below.

http://www.cellcraftgame.com/Home.html

            The question I pose to the class: Does the video game format (especially the prominent flash and phone formats) makes it easier to hide educational biases or more difficult.

Guest Post: Emily

I think of this video when I think of media shifts although it is a technology shift... but it still reminds me of the new inventions sort of bowing down to the new invention, McLuhan talks about how the new invention will suppress the old one. This week we read about how some countries are testing children on their internet skills. We know that the internet and digital technology is the new invention that is already suppressing reading, but does anyone ever wonder what will be the new invention that over-throws the internet? I personally cannot even begin to think of what this new invention might be.  

 Firsts

Guest Post: Joseph

This reader has many good points that I think everyone should know about. This blogger tells of the effect books have on her life and how she feels about books. At the same time she relates it back to how books are looked at now days. She talks about she writes so she can say what she wants to say, and she shows that book are a connection between readers to share ideas and point of views. However, she kind of fades away from her idea to publish because she says, "why publish when at a click of a button I can make it available on the internet." She makes alot of good points about books and I think it is worth listening too.

 

Life Without Books

Guest Post: Lissy

                        Academic   

                                      vs.

                               Journalistic

                                      Writing Styles

Because our expository writing class focuses on media shifts, I thought I would blog about the differences and challenges of actual media or journalistic writing compared with the academic style we follow as expo students.

I am also taking a writing in the mass media class this semester and I sometimes struggle going back and forth between these two styles of writing.  The journalistic style completely focuses on different aspects than what makes a good quality paper in expo.  In journalism the writing is all about being clear, simple, brief, and accurate.  Brevity is not something an academic writer normally uses unlike a journalist.  Writing papers in expo or any other type of English class usually receives a much better grade when the writer goes into a lot of detail, explains all parts of the argument or claim, and expresses complex ideas.  A paper written like this would never appear in a newspaper as a new story.  People that read novels or academic papers want the detail and the vocabulary while someone reading the news wants a quick, clear, simple, and to the point story.

Future novelist, journalist, or neither, I figured this would be an interesting and ironic topic to blog about since all of our academic writings in this class do relate to the media in some way.  Do you face challenges in these two specific writing styles?  Have you noticed the simplicity of a media story?  How can you separate the two styles?  Are there other formal and informal writing formats that can be confusing?