According to Kress, writing is bombarded by 4 factors, such as social and communicational (1/12). All of these seem to attack the traditional views of writing. How do teachers adapt to the new attacks? How do they deal with the intrusion of the visual in the face of the printed word?
Wysocki brings this out with her list of needs. Again, it seems important for the teachers of writing to grasp the relationship of the new media to writing, and to incorporate the new media to their teaching. Actually, this reflects on the discussions we have had in class, in that we teachers need to instruct the students as to how to handle the new media, though Wysocki restricts this necessity to the subject of writing. Indeed, she insists that “New media needs to be open to writing” (3/12) and maintains that writing teaches are the ones to “inform” new media (3/12).
I am intrigued by the discussion on how with online discussion, shy in class, did well. This result is because these different media allow people to develop new identities. It can be great freedom, in that one does not have to reveal who he or she really is, and can communicate in confidence. Still, there are limits. The examples given were the tendency of Latino students not to give voice on line as Latino, and that women did not know how to use online to their advantage to develop new voices (5/12). Of course, there are other problems in that pedophiles also can master the art of new identity and prey on naïve students. Another argument to teach children about the new media.
(5/12) This reads like Remediation, in that new technology does not push out old technology. Wysocki state that “New Technologies are always designed out of existing technologies and out of existing material economies, patterns, and habits” (5/12)
The remark indicates that those who wish to harness the new technologies must adopt the mindsets from with the innovation had come. Developing countries, who acquire internet technology, for example, must learn of the Western culture to understand the technology. I do not think that this is a bad thing. It is a tradeoff for progress.
I see that teachers can use their own knowledge of writing and adapt to the new media. My experience of this was at a school for my practicum. While we were teaching kindergartners the fun of writing, other children were working on computer to reinforce reading and writing skills.
I once taught a student, who straight away that he hated writing. A few days later, I noticed that the family owned a Tandy 1000 ™ computer—yes, this dates me. I immediately begged the parents to let the student use it. I had hoped that using the new media, he would change his mind about writing, and thus master the art of writing.
The gamble paid off. Not only did he begin to write, but he flourished, and, in fact, he was highly opinionated. He could easily have become a columnist. He wrote report after report and even went to the point of writing freely for extra credit. The parents had never witnessed this behavior before.
Of course, in the line of work as a homebound teacher, I know not what happened to him, but I hope that he continued his writing!
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Sentient Computers?
The movie has various layers to it. First, the narrator sounds like an enthusiast for technology, then the movie becomes more informational, no longer with enthusiasm, but resembling an operator’s manual. Still, I sensed something deeper.
The next layer is chilling. WHO is the narrator? Why would it not be the computer? The computer could be establishing itself as superior to humanity, perhaps not as intense as Saberhagen’s Beserker, but still a matter of anxiety.
There is precedence here. Long ago, a Scandinavian wrote a book dealing with the possible end to humanity. Yet the book began like a history of civilization, which rose to its absolute height with the computer, then fell, but slowly reached its height again. Near the end, my assumption that the narrator was human, was chastened When the narrator questioned in a clinical fashion, whether or not to save the human race, and at the end, the mechanical speaker praised itself and its fellow machines.
To answer John from, last week, there have been somewhat successful attempts to make computers run parallel, as opposed to serially. This means that when perfected, the computer reactions will approach that of the human nervous system, and that would bring us much closer to true artificial intelligence, though it is not clear if artificial sentience is possible. The movie is a reminder of the sheer power these machines have, and if they but knew this…
In “Writing, technologies, and the fifth canon,” Lunsford explores different ideas of literacy, and laments that people must be subject to constant reinventions of writing, thus the implied question is one we have seen all semester—What is writing? She praises the return of orality and looks to the text as dictator. I am by no means convinced that what she considers the writing hegemony will wither away, and I imagine that is wishful thinking.
I will agree that Lunsford’s definition of writing is unwieldy, but indeed covers the forms of writing practiced up to now, from stone tablets to keyboards.
I was fascinated with her study group using high-tech devices to convey meaning, and further amazed that the children asked the crucial question of the balance between technology and learning. Are they learning writing, which is the fundamental question? I wonder if Lunsford had unwittingly fallen for the fallacy that technology itself will do the teaching, and forgotten that it is merely a tool.
The next layer is chilling. WHO is the narrator? Why would it not be the computer? The computer could be establishing itself as superior to humanity, perhaps not as intense as Saberhagen’s Beserker, but still a matter of anxiety.
There is precedence here. Long ago, a Scandinavian wrote a book dealing with the possible end to humanity. Yet the book began like a history of civilization, which rose to its absolute height with the computer, then fell, but slowly reached its height again. Near the end, my assumption that the narrator was human, was chastened When the narrator questioned in a clinical fashion, whether or not to save the human race, and at the end, the mechanical speaker praised itself and its fellow machines.
To answer John from, last week, there have been somewhat successful attempts to make computers run parallel, as opposed to serially. This means that when perfected, the computer reactions will approach that of the human nervous system, and that would bring us much closer to true artificial intelligence, though it is not clear if artificial sentience is possible. The movie is a reminder of the sheer power these machines have, and if they but knew this…
In “Writing, technologies, and the fifth canon,” Lunsford explores different ideas of literacy, and laments that people must be subject to constant reinventions of writing, thus the implied question is one we have seen all semester—What is writing? She praises the return of orality and looks to the text as dictator. I am by no means convinced that what she considers the writing hegemony will wither away, and I imagine that is wishful thinking.
I will agree that Lunsford’s definition of writing is unwieldy, but indeed covers the forms of writing practiced up to now, from stone tablets to keyboards.
I was fascinated with her study group using high-tech devices to convey meaning, and further amazed that the children asked the crucial question of the balance between technology and learning. Are they learning writing, which is the fundamental question? I wonder if Lunsford had unwittingly fallen for the fallacy that technology itself will do the teaching, and forgotten that it is merely a tool.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Remediation Revisited
Bolter and Grusin take a great many pages to tell a simple story. They wish to state that all is remediation, and all remediation is dependent on other remediations. The authors give the example of the movie theater, including not only the big screen, but also the posters and videogames in the lobby (67), apparently reinforcing what the moviegoers have just watched.
The authors maintain that newly invented media will be used in relation to other media (66). Microcomputers are thought of in context of other technology such as the calculator, and adding machine. Cinema can make use of the computers, and the computers can make use of cinema. The example given is that as computer graphics improve, it would be possible to show high-quality actors on the screen (70), yet there may be no need for the actors if the graphics can duplicate them closer to life than currently possible.
They describe networks in which the remediation is dependent on a number of factors such as social, and economical (67). The authors mentioned the funding of certain media. There is scrutiny over the content brought by the media, for example, inappropriate shows on Saturday morning television what the media produce for the viewer. I was impressed that the social aspect goes more deeply. The authors mention that some wish to be referred to in different ways, in this case, actors who wish to be referred to as artists (69), which hearkens to days of earlier media, or cameramen as “social historians” (70)! Thus, remediation can change the way that users of the media look at themselves.
Bolter and Grusin continue to offer examples of hypermediacy in the past such as the components of a cathedral (34-35), and the elaborate systems of drawers and images in late renaissance cabinets (35). They also talk of hypermediacy in oil paintings (36).
The authors focus largely on photography, and the development of devices to influence representation. One of these is the stereoscope (37), which I played with as a child, and which provides a 3-dimensional illusion to the photograph (37).
The authors suggest hypermedia can be in music by turning up volume thus feeling as well as hearing music. (53).
Remediation also involves a change in the way the viewer perceives the media in question. An example that the authors give is digital photography. It is now easier to alter images to blur what is real from what is fiction. This can create a social problem worthy of Orwell if such technology is used by the news outlets to alter photographs and even film to distort information to the public. Perhaps ethical questions on remediation are needed.
The authors maintain that newly invented media will be used in relation to other media (66). Microcomputers are thought of in context of other technology such as the calculator, and adding machine. Cinema can make use of the computers, and the computers can make use of cinema. The example given is that as computer graphics improve, it would be possible to show high-quality actors on the screen (70), yet there may be no need for the actors if the graphics can duplicate them closer to life than currently possible.
They describe networks in which the remediation is dependent on a number of factors such as social, and economical (67). The authors mentioned the funding of certain media. There is scrutiny over the content brought by the media, for example, inappropriate shows on Saturday morning television what the media produce for the viewer. I was impressed that the social aspect goes more deeply. The authors mention that some wish to be referred to in different ways, in this case, actors who wish to be referred to as artists (69), which hearkens to days of earlier media, or cameramen as “social historians” (70)! Thus, remediation can change the way that users of the media look at themselves.
Bolter and Grusin continue to offer examples of hypermediacy in the past such as the components of a cathedral (34-35), and the elaborate systems of drawers and images in late renaissance cabinets (35). They also talk of hypermediacy in oil paintings (36).
The authors focus largely on photography, and the development of devices to influence representation. One of these is the stereoscope (37), which I played with as a child, and which provides a 3-dimensional illusion to the photograph (37).
The authors suggest hypermedia can be in music by turning up volume thus feeling as well as hearing music. (53).
Remediation also involves a change in the way the viewer perceives the media in question. An example that the authors give is digital photography. It is now easier to alter images to blur what is real from what is fiction. This can create a social problem worthy of Orwell if such technology is used by the news outlets to alter photographs and even film to distort information to the public. Perhaps ethical questions on remediation are needed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)