Our Kind of Technology: The First World Bandaid

Our Solution for Your Problem...

While I agree that the potential of dumbing down of students via what's "cool" online exists, as educators we cannot deny that medium plays an important role in helping to convey information unto our students. I think the point is that education has to evolve with the audience it is trying to reach. Yes, television, radio, laser discs, and all that jazz may have been used as supplemental tools in the classroom, but the fact is as new technology they were incorporated into academia in some capacity. Something that some teachers are fightning for one reason or another. I cannot suggest that we revamp the entire system to inlcude nothing but technological tools, but there are some who reject even the consideration of technology as a tool in the classroom because they feel it is for entertainment use only, so it cannot possibly serve an educative purpose. There is a way to use technology to encourage critical thinking among students -- just as there is a way to use television to broaden their scope of knowledge or make an lesson come alive -- I just don't think its use should be accompanied by a worksheet. This is why I say that the advent of technology in the classroom is a case of access and agency. In these types of discussions we are always aware that there are areas where access to "our kind of technology" is impossible or nonexistent -- but we have to change the way we think about technology -- we have come to know technology as a computer, cell phone, or tablet -- and the term itself is often associated with modernization; however, the fact is that technology is really a fancy word for a tool that makes a process more entertaining, efficient, or effective -- so even in our most rural areas technology is there in some form, and being used in some capacity. Considering also that schools may be the only place some students have access to books or other informational tools, one cannot use over-crowding or other faults of school districts (and the USDOE) as an excuse for why technology cannot be a staple in our classrooms -- every child does not need his own personal computer (although, I am sure for entertainment purposes he finds his way to one) -- but tools like interactive whiteboards, and digital projectors are also ways in which technology can be used on a larger scale to present information to a class of students. This type of usage exposes students to new resources, and can be used to enhance a traditional lesson. It really is a matter of agency (power) because the way the teacher chooses to utilize these tools to frame a lesson/concept can faciliate critical thinking among students, and equip them with traditional skills at higher levels, as well as other functional literacy skills in a digital age.

When we consider issues in the field of education it is often from a position of our privilege , although our intentions may be to reach even those on the lowest rung.  Even when we try to be socially aware we still (unconsciously) impose the use our first world ideas on others -- a let them eat cake ideology of sorts.  Among the things I have learned as an educator with regard to inspiring social action among my students is that awareness and reflective analysis are big parts of social change. I find myself using this blog as a forum for social change -- using it to express my ideas in the hope that someone will read it and say to himself/herself, "I never thought about it that way before!"  In our top-down society it is important that we as teachers make the existence of issues of privilege and oppression in education and within society clear to our students so that they may be inspired to change the system.  For us as teachers, this could mean helping our students learn how to read the word and the world (Freire & Macedo) -- by facilitating an understanding of socially constructed difference among them; helping children in our poorest schools become more aware of their social position in society in relation to the world around them, or making the suffering of others due to societal inequities more real for the children in our most privileged schools (perhaps even enraging them a little about the differences that exist with society's heirarchies of difference worldwide).  As Ray Bradbury so aptly reported -- these are not responsibilities of the state, but of the people.

Fahrenheit Four-Fifty…Facebook?

Choose Social Networking…Because Nobody Reads Anymore?

While sitting in the Student Union on Wednesday I overheard a conversation among a group of girls, who I assumed were undergraduate students.  Their conversation made me fear for the future of our society.  My ears perked up immediately when I heard those infamous words that made me cringe:  “nobody reads books anymore”.  I could not believe my ears.  Sure, the consensus among many of us as we move toward an age of digital literacy is that text will soon refer to words on a screen as opposed the printed words on a page; however, my belief has always been that we, as a society, would swap out one form of text for the other.  Instead we, as a society, are allowing the printed page to become obsolete in favor a more efficient form of information construction, acquisition, and distribution.  The increased use of social networking sites will, without a doubt, change the way we create, receive, and disseminate information because these sites “serve as performative spaces that might help students understand the postmodern logics of identity construction” (37, 38).  This new medium may entail that the foundational hierarchies of knowledge within our society may come undone; however, it also means that it will assist in the development of new foundational hierarchies of knowledge in which we create new societal norms. 

My experience from earlier this week…coupled with my reading of Presnky, led me to consider Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 as I contemplated the future of literacy among members of society.  Where indeed will they get their information from?  Published in 1953, Bradbury’s book predicted a future of American society in which books were outlawed and firemen burned the houses that contained them.  In a 2007 interview, Ray Bradbury contended that his book has been misinterpreted as a protest against censorship, when in reality it spoke to how the advent of new media (i.e., television) affected literature, and destroyed interest in reading.  The opinion of the young lady from my anecdote demonstrates that our present day society is not far off from Bradbury’s prediction. 

In an attempt to reconcile Prensky’s contentions that digital natives prefer flashy text, random access, instant gratification, and frequent rewards with their apparent value of future content (technology, ethics, politics, sociology, language, etc.), I once again advocate for openness regarding the significance of new technology as an educative tool.  It is becoming commonplace in my blog to continuously showcase the ways in which technological nuances can be used as a curricular and instructional tool.  How many times will I explain that when framed and implemented in a way conducive to exploration and discovery, technology and new media (i.e., social networking) can be used to facilitate student learning?  At this point I cannot stress any more the importance of choosing a tool based on its appropriateness for achieving a task or completing an objective.  Some readers may think I am suggesting a dumbing down of curricular and instructional tools; that instead of asking students (and society) to rise to the challenge of meeting traditional scholastic expectations with regard to mediums through which knowledge acquisition occurs, that I am asking them to use unintelligible methods to do their homework.  Far from it; I am simply suggesting that we can frame/construct the use of technology, and social networking as tools that encourage critical thinking among our students. 

The fact is that many digital natives are already constructing their identities via technology and social networking sites.  These digital natives are treating identity construction as a performative act, in which the construction of their identities is conditioned by technology, and occurs through technology.  Technology makes concepts real and meaningful for digital natives, including the concept of self/identity.  Therefore, technology constructs meaning and realness for digital natives.

In keeping with Bradbury’s prediction – society should neither render a tool/skill obsolete, nor replace it with something that retards society’s ability to appreciate knowledge/information.  We cannot simply buy in to the snippet, status, and sound bite culture into which society is devolving.  What’s more, Bradbury contends (and rightly so) that it is not the state, but people who are actually the ideological [state] apparatus.  The state institutionalizes societal norms, but the citizen takes what begins as a habit of thought and creates a cultural habit or ideology in the establishment of a collective identity/shared community (Clark). 

 

Side Note:  Please check out Amy Boyle Johnston's (2007) piece about the truth behind Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451:  Fahrenheit 451: Misinterpreted

Social Networking: Closing the Achievement Gap & Leveling the Playing Field

Social Networking:  Closing the Achievement Gap & Leveling the Playing Field

It is becoming more apparent that with each advancement in technology our relationship with knowledge changes.  With each day we are learning that there is a new tool or innovation through which we can manipulate information.  As teachers we have to take into consideration that our students are more often than not plugged in to some kind of technology.  They are constantly engaged by it.  It is up to us to discover how we are able to use technology for our professional development, and the academic enrichment of our students.  As Vie attempts to demonstrate the relationship between social networking and pedagogy, she suggests that as teachers and scholars we do not have to yield to social networking sites as a pedagogical tool, but acknowledge that student attention is drawn to social networking sites, and technology as a whole.  I am assuming that this is a caveat, in which she insinuates that as adults we do not have to yield to our students’ new toys, but as educators we may want to consider technology (and social networking) as an appropriate educative tool. 

Whether this tool is a dictionary, an encyclopedia, a video, a disk, or a website, providing access to information is one way in which teachers may broaden a students’ knowledge base.  One reason we step away from social networking sites as an educative tool is because its implicit use is nonsensical.  At this point, Facebook, MySpace, and other social networking websites have been used to primarily to connect friends, and share pictures cats – they do not appear to serve an academic purpose.  We have to justify the use of social networking and social media as a pedagogical tool.  We must change the face of social networking and social media so that they represent education and demonstrate their value in the field of education.  As teachers we should attempt to demonstrate how social networking and social media can broaden the scope of student and teacher knowledge.  Moreover, we should reveal that the use of this type of technology can create new dimensions of academia, and avenues through which learning can occur (i.e., connecting students to resources or people, used as interactive curricular & instructional tools).   We have to show our parents and administrators that social networking and social media can help close the achievement gap that exists in our society on a global level by connecting students and teachers so that they can engage one another in an information exchange.  It is time to use the resources we have at our disposal for entertainment to level the academic playing field among students by providing access to information for all.

The issue of social networking and social media as an educative tool is more a question of agency than access.  Technology can bring many positive aspects into the classroom, but fear and issues of control are associated with giving a classroom freewheeling access to information.  This type of access leaves room for the potential danger of exposure to information for which students may not be ready.  Moreover, this type of openness may expose students to information that has the potential to affect the social construction of their beliefs/identities, and change their foundational hierarchies of knowledge, as well as established hierarchies of privilege/oppression in society. 

Whose Idea was the Scarlet Letter?

Agency, Authority, Autonomy, Access & Ability:

Portfolios, Pedagogy & Praxis

Horrace Mann suggested that the role of the education was to be “beyond all other devices of human origin…the great equalizer of conditions of men, the balance-wheel of the social machinery”; however, as demonstrated in studies by Anyon (1981) and Kozol (2005), the role of education has evolved into the social reproduction of identity among students.  In this age of accountability (and by accountability I mean TESTING), educational policy has continued to divide students, and reproduce social hierarchies of difference and otherness to create character molds for students.  Rather than facilitating student learning, and critical thinking with regard to their social positions in society, traditional pedagogy has evolved overtime to encourage automaticity, mechanization, and obedience among the identity development of students and teachers.  Compliance is ingrained in student/teacher relationships and identities through curriculum and instruction. 

In her article The Digital Imperative:  Making the Case for a 21^st – Century Pedagogy (2009), Elizabeth Clark begins with an allusion to Gutenberg’s printing press in 1450.  She suggests that this technological innovation changed education and literacy among the masses by providing access to information through its “rapid distribution of knowledge” (28).  As we consider the ways in which we construct our identities within the myriad of forums that make up society, it is difficult to overlook the ways in which aspects of Agency (power), Authority (right/ownership), Autonomy (freedom), and Access affect our Ability to do so.  Citing Siva Vaidhyanathan and John Dewey, Clark suggests that the identities we construct in an effort to function in mainstream society are a result of habits of thought.  She states, “[t]hese ‘habits’ among individuals build into ‘cultural habits,’ or ideologies, though discussion, deliberation, and distribution” (28).  These ‘cultural habits’ develop along with a collective identity.  As a shared community (Clark 28), we move into another stage in the process of social construction since these ‘cultural habits’ often develop into a shared identity, and later a shared relationship with information and the world.  There is no individuality of thought or thought process among cyber socialites.  So how can there be individuality in our identity construction?

The ePortfolio is among the pedagogical tools/methods invoked by Elizabeth Clark.  As a tool for instruction or evaluation it seems that the use of portfolio pedagogy will work to promote individuality of thought in education and identity construction by encouraging students to think about their identity and relationships to their work (in progress) and ultimately (or eventually) the world around them.  What’s more, as an evaluative tool it forces teachers and administrators to judge students on an individualized, rather than a collective, basis/criteria.  My limited experiences as a teacher have helped me to understand how the development of individual relationships with information among students affects their academic performance.  As a machine for social reproduction, education does more than its fair share of facilitating group-think (much like the mentality that punished Hester Prynne) and the collective identity of students, and does nothing to help students learn a concept, let alone process information.  The implementation of pedagogical tools that open the world up to students will change the way they think about their world because, like Gutenberg’s printing press, there will be marked improvement in their Accessibility to information.  Students will no longer be robbed of their Ability to develop a relationship with the world and understand their position in it through education.  In their social lives students understand that a simulated power, freedom, and right exists which allows them to “express themselves”.  This is something that is missing in education because we are so focused on teaching to the test – Agency, Autonomy, and Authority have been taken out of education, in turn retarding our Access to information and Ability to understand the self in relation to the world.  The classroom has been closed off from the world by educational policy, and curriculum reform.  According to Clark, the use of technology and new media in the classroom creates a learning experiences for students that enable them to “tailor their…identities…to see how the function within different communities...[contest] knowledge production…question…make connections…between their academic and lived lives” (29 – 30).  Students and teachers are able to engage in dialogue, reflection, and analysis of their social conditions and positions right now, and even social action toward social justice because technology gives us the ability right now (in this moment…TODAY) to bring the world, literally the world, right into our classrooms. 

Naturalized Digital Citizenship...

I am a Naturalized Digital Immigrant!

The following is an adaptation of the United States Oath of Allegiance taken by all immigrants who wish to become naturalized citizens of the United States upon passing through the appropriate channels.  This is a version for digital immigrants.  While its recitation is not imperative for becoming naturalized citizens of the technological state, our actions are demonstrative and indicative of the promise we make through our growing use and dependence on technology and new media.

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any primitive tool to which I have hencetofore been a subject; that I will support and defend the advancement and innovation of the technological state; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will construct my identity as a part of this new digital age; and I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me Jobs.

Considering Prensky’s (2001) definitions of Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants, I did not have a hard time deciding that I was a Digital Immigrant.  I was not “born into the digital world” but as a student, and with the advent of the Apple IPhone, I have definitely “become fascinated by and adopted many or most aspects of new technology.”  As Dr. Barrios so aptly stated in my class on the night of October 16th, 2012, we are, in fact, living in an Apple Ecosystem; however, as technologically savvy as I would like to think I am, because I consider myself a digital immigrant, I often find myself restricted by technology.  I cannot effortlessly go forth and start using new media or technology without first learning it – sometimes several times.  While the World Wide Web opens me up to endless possibilities with regard to the acquisition of information, sometimes it can be a difficult place to navigate.  Moreover, with technological innovations knocking on every classroom door it is difficult not to incorporate technology into our teaching and learning.  Although pencils and paper may never become obsolete, a stylus and a tablet is certainly the way of the future.

I like to think of myself as a self-directed learner; someone who takes the initiative and responsibility for regulating -- “planning, implementing, and evaluating” (Hiemstra, 1994) -- my own progress on a lesson.  As the world becomes more fascinated with technology and society moves into a new dimension of functional literacy, in which technology holds great weight, I do not feel as though my capacity to be a self-directed learner has been retarded in anyway.  Being a digital immigrant kicks my tendency toward self-directed learning into overdrive.  This is because in addition to familiarizing myself with the new learning concept, I am also compelled to master the new technology. 

For example, my experiences with the new media project for this class have shown me just how determined, and self-directed, albeit stubborn, I really am as a student.  Working with the concept of a webquest, I first had to learn about webquests in general.  Moving forward into actually creating a webquest, I had to familiarize myself with a lesson and curriculum that would accommodate this type of teaching tool.  Upon doing that I decided that Prezi was my medium of choice for increasing the interactive-ness of this tool – sure a word document or powerpoint presentation may have done the job just fine, but I decided to challenge myself with yet another piece of new media.  To make a long story short, there was a lot going on here.  Without having completed the actual project I was swimming in learning concepts associated with it before it manifested itself physically.

Neil Flemming provided a model for categorizing learning styles in which he identified three types of learners:  visual, auditory, and kinesthetic/tactile.  According to Flemming, visual learners “think in pictures”, they use visual aids to facilitate their learning; auditory learners best acquire information by listening; and kinesthetic/tactile learners are best engaged through exploration and experience – moving, touching, doing.   I used to pride myself on being a visual learner (for the most part).  Put something in front of me to read and I was good to go, words were my friends.  But now I realize that as technology advances into education, I am becoming more and more of a kinesthetic/tactile learner – I need to do in an order to learn.  It is no longer enough for me to see or hear something in an effort to process or grasp an understanding of it.  I need to touch it.  I need to explore it.  I need to experience it.  I am becoming a new type of learner because of the evolution of functional literacy vis a vis technology.  I am still a self-directed learner because I believe this is a part of my learning personality, but I am learning differently because of the changing forms/embodiment of information.

 

Technological Power Play:

New Media as Critical Pedagogy

As society and education move toward a new type of functional literacy, one that emphasizes the knowledge and use of technology, new media is playing a more significant role in pedagogy.  Students (and teachers) are developing a symbiotic relationship with technology in which machines and technology are being systematically ingrained in culture and human history.  According to Hayles (2006), “[c]ultural beliefs and practices are part of this co-evolutionary dynamic because they influence what tools are made and how those tools are used, which in turn affects who we are as biological organisms, which then feeds back into the co-evolutionary spiral."  Because it is the responsibility of educational practitioners, as well as the field of education to meet the social and academic needs of their students, the teacher, and the field must change to accommodate the evolution of its students and society.  Ultimately, to meet the needs of its students, the academic institution must, as it has always done, reflect the societies, cultural norms, and social norms that shape human beings. 

As an expansion of my new media project and Tech/Rhet Wiki tool (WebQuest and The Khan Academy), I want to continue my exploration of the use of new media as critical pedagogy.  This would mean demonstrating for educational practitioners (school teachers and administrators) how the use of technology as a part of their curriculum and instruction helps students develop an understanding of their social position in the classroom and society.  This means that in addition to considering how the use of technology affects superficial student learning, research must demonstrate how technology facilitates student (and teacher) understanding of the relationships of power in the classroom and society.  Research centered on the role of technology as critical pedagogy must consider the extent to which agency (power) and autonomy exist in teaching and learning as students (and teachers) make meaning of knowledge (Toffoletti, Baudrillard, Derrida, Badmington).
 
Paulo Freire (1969) maintains that when teachers engage in teaching practices that facilitate conscientization (awareness) and praxis (reflective analysis) among their students regarding their relationships with power a shift occurs within these dynamics of power in society through education.  The forms (embodiment) in which these tools and practices manifest (i.e., how lessons/lesson plans are structured/constructed) demonstrate for the educational field how social reproduction occurs in society (Hayles, Welch, Bolter, Johnson-Eilola & Selber).  Considering this social construction of schooling, one must also consider the social construction of the student and the teacher (Hayles).  The aim is to consider the different roles technology and new media play in education as a tool (or agent) of teaching and learning.  In so doing, one is able to consider the ways in which technology informs pedagogy, and pedagogy informs technology.

For the Tech/Rhet Wiki...

The Khan Academy
http://www.khanacademy.org

With the growing popularity and versatility of YouTube videos, the field of education must change with the latest advancements in technology and evolution of its students.  The Khan Academy is an educational resource that demonstrates how traditional teaching/instructional practices can be revolutionized when technology and academia effectively work together.  It can be described as an interactive, collaborative, global classroom.  This free tutoring service provides online instructional videos, (guided) practice, and learning communities for all types of learners, children and adults alike.  Of course, to think of the Khan Academy as merely a tutoring service is a gross underrepresentation of its uses and resources. 

As a student resource the Khan Academy provides users with an opportunity to customize their learning experience – with an assortment of instructional videos (each approximately 10 minutes long), interactive challenges (guided practice activities) and assessments, all available online.  It even breaks down lessons, and skillsets (hints, step by step instruction, etc.) during practice to help students better understand a concept, and ensure mastery of it.  Students, teachers, and parents are able to monitor students’ self-paced and self-directed learning and progress in subjects that “[cover] K-12 math, science topics such as biology, chemistry, and physics, and even reaches into humanities” (finance, history, etc.).  What’s more, through students’ personal profiles the Khan Academy provides its own assessment of student progress.  The website maps students’ activity, and provides feedback regarding their practice and mastery in different subject areas/skillsets – helping students and teachers determine where their focus should be to improve student understanding of a particular concept. 

As a resource for teachers, and administrators the Khan Academy is a supplemental teaching and professional development tool.  Schools can use this type of educational resource to provide supplemental instruction to students regarding topics discussed in class, giving students extra practice, and monitoring student understanding of various concepts.  As a professional development tool, schools can use this type of a resource to collaborate with other instructors regarding student progress, or ways in which they can differentiate their instruction.  Additionally, the methods and tools provided by the Khan Academy can offer ideas and approaches toward curriculum development and reform. 

Although this site includes instruction on a myriad of disciplines, its coverage of the arts and humanities is limited; however, it is a step in the right direction for the student or academic of today who works (or learns) in sound bites, and snippets.  As society and education moves toward a new type of functional literacy, one that emphasizes the knowledge and use of technology, the Khan Academy finds a way to reinforce the humanism in pedagogy through personalized and differentiated instruction.  Salman Khan, founder of the Khan Academy, suggests that his innovative educational resource models the way he wishes he was taught as a child.  But his use of technology for the implementation of curriculum and instruction is also indicative of the way many teachers wish they could teach in this age of accountability, which in effect is to employ tools and practices that epitomize the individualized and customizable academic enrichment of all of their students.

 

Side Note:  The Khan Academy on The Colbert Report

 

 

Learned Plagiarism

Academic Camouflage…
The Art of Mushfake (or Invisibility)

I cannot stop reeling over this idea of "learned plagiarism".  I keep thinking of the way I learned to write a research paper in high school and I feel like I learned this process of assemblage in sort of the opposite way.  I was encouraged to acknowledge my sources in my formal writing.  From what I came to understand from my teachers, if I failed to cite my sources then my work would lack the credibility and genius (Johnson-Eilola & Selber) that would lead to its acceptance in mainstream academia. 

Later on in my academic career (and by later on I mean NOW), I would learn that I had to stop depending on the “three long quote, five short quote” structure my papers and writing had come to adopt if I even hoped to make it as a doctoral student, let alone a published author in a peer-reviewed academic journal.  My writing and academic identity had to be transformed.  I could no longer rely on the ideas, theories, and philosophies of others nestled comfortably between quotation marks.  My “original” ideas could no longer be hidden among citations.  NOW to be accepted into the world of mainstream academia, my scholarship had to be entirely my own – I had to become the citation – and the credible sources I was taught to cite/acknowledge as a K-12 student were now supposed to be supporting actors in my work.  The credibility of my work/academic writing no longer depends on how many sources I could cite, or authors/theorists I could quote as it once did, but on the merit of my creative genius.

Obviously this kind of pressure did not exist for me as an elementary school or even middle school student – at this stage in life these were the days of simple sentences, anagram poems, book reports, and grammar lessons.  These typical lessons/activities, even if marketed to students as wholly creative under the guise of an art project (i.e., not in the form of a textbook or worksheet), were still structured, formatted, and pieced together to limit the true potential of the student’s creative genius.  I think the point I am trying to make is that all of these ideas are an assemblage of something else from somewhere else -- from the lesson plan to the final product – from the idea to the format and example, to the implementation and the outcome – it’s ALL a sample of something that came before it – an assemblage or collage of words, ideas, and material.   

As I analyze my own experiences as a writing student (nay as a student in general), I realize that I was taught to mushfake (Gee) – trained in the art of mushfake discourse.  The definition of this term is most likely what you think it to be – an accurate representation of the amalgamation of the two words that make it up – mush and fake.  Loosely translated, a person who engages in mushfaking is combining (or mushing – mush used as verb) together partial acquisition of the dominant discourse, as well as meta-knowledge (knowledge of other knowledge – mush used as a noun) of strategies associated with functional literacy to pass/hide (fake) in mainstream society.  It is academic/literacy camouflage…a survival strategy…hiding out in the open…“within their own culture” (Bartlett, 1994, 295) – or at least with the culture shaped by the dominant discourse.  The long of the short of it is that my entire academic career, the philosophies and identities I have written for myself in many of life’s forums have been and continue to be assemblage and mushfake – the ineffectual reassembly/simulation of ideas, words, material a.k.a knowledge to situate ourselves and construct our identities in the performance piece that is academia, mainstream society, marriage, motherhood, and ultimately life. 

At this point, it seems as though I have reached an impasse – one in which I am trapped in the ouroboros, realizing that even this piece is a reassembly of ideas/theories, making it a part of the very cycle about which I am trying to think critically, but from which I am bred. 

Beware the Ouroboros!

Turns out it does not have to be a ditto to be a copy…or mushfake!

 

It’s ALL a Sample (or Remix)…

What are We Writing For?

 

Reading the work and theories of Johnson-Eilola & Selber (2007) regarding the relationship between plagiarism and assemblage, I am reminded of my days working with Kaplan K-12 Learning Services.  As an instructor for this company, I was provided with all of the resources I would ever need for presenting their curriculum to my students.  For the duration of my employment I was a scripted teacher, and any deviation from this script was frowned upon by my supervisors.  Johnson-Eilola & Selber reminded me that in this age of accountability, teachers, just as much as students, are victims of assemblage.  According to these authors the “final” product a student produces—a text—is not concerned with original words or images on a page or screen but concerned primarily with assemblages of parts” (380).  Similarly, today’s pedagogical practices, and professional development of teachers are also concerned with their ability to reassemble information and present it to their students for the purpose of achieving a particular objective or score.
 

In fact, as I have often discussed in my blog posts this semester, much of the knowledge or information we acquire is a “simulation of its predecessor” (Toffoletti, Baudrillard).  What Johnson-Eilola & Selber are suggesting is that student writers are being constructed to simulate and hide their “genius”.  The authors state that “[w]hat we want to suggest…is that the whole issue of plagiarism is still tied to the idea of the lone, creative genius.  In other words, at least one set of social forces suggests to students that using citations and quotations from sources materials will be valued less than their own original text, a situation that may encourage them to conceal their sources” (378).  They propose a redefinition of creativity; one in which “[c]reativity…shifts into assemblage:  Take what already exists and make something else, something that works to solve problems in new, local contexts” (400). 

To this I say “yes” and “no”

We spend our class time theorizing and philosophizing these ideas of agency, embodiment, consciousness, and originality.  And we often leave the room realizing that all that we know, anything that we perceive to be an original idea, is actually a copy of something that came before it.  In a nutshell…it is all plagiarized.  Yes, students are taught to recognize the current version of the box or wheel.  Teaching and instructional practices utilized in this age of accountability ensure that they learn to understand, interpret, and reiterate whatever society deems to be the current standard or model at the moment for a particular subject because at the end of the day anything we believe is the product of social construction.  Let’s face it, to what extent can we really believe that anything we think is original?  At the end of the day the responsibility of students, teachers, and ultimately society is to think critically about their social constructions.  However, one is also apt to disagree with the idea that students are not being taught to construct or make meaning of their own.  If anything the student has more creative license, more agency to make meaning than the author.  The work of the author is often open to more interpretation than he/she may have ever intended and readers are free to glean what they will from it.  Roland Barthes suggests that “literature is [the] neuter, that composite, that oblique into which every subject escapes, the trap where all identity is lost, beginning with the very identity of the body that writes” (2).  Writers are essentially put into boxes or wheels.  They are constrained or confined by meaning.  The identity of the writer is constructed by interpretation…the meaning made of his/her writing.  At the end of the day producing a final product is a part of a cycle of constructing meaning.  Barthes states that “a code cannot be destroyed, it can only be “played with”…by abruptly violating expected meanings” (p. 3).  As I work to interpret Johnson-Eilola & Selber, I want my students to work toward producing original work that affects social change.  I want to be honest about the issues that plague, corrupt, and destroy society…I want my own writing to change the world and change the lives of those who encounter my theories and ideas for the better.  But regardless of intent simply by constructing meaning and knowledge to some extent our work has some type of social effect.  We add new knowledge to the field, we affect the lives of those studied, we stir old archives, and we create “new” knowledge, if only for ourselves; to some extent we have a social effect on the world no matter how small. 

As a student, as well as someone journeying into the world of publishing to further her academic success and professional reputation as an academic, I can no longer write for myself (the real question is will I always have the courage to be this honest – or will I develop a fear of honesty in favor of being published?).  My ideas and interpretations of theories are no longer just mine…come to think of it they were never mine to begin with…no matter how revolutionary I ever thought they were.  Instead like the writers and theorists who came before me and those who will come after me I am “a mediator, shaman or speaker, whose “performance” may be admired (that is, his mastery of the narrative code), but not his “genius”” (Barthes 2).  Producing a final product, whether this means writing for academia or the great American novel, is simply a part of a cycle of constructing meaning in which we take an “original” idea make it the model, teach to the model, change the meaning, and do it all over again.

Social Networking, the New High Society Party…

 

Who Are You?
In The Great Gatsby (1925) by F. Scott Fitzgerald, socialite Jordan Baker asserts that she “like[s] large parties.  They’re so intimate.  At small parties there isn’t any privacy.”  Jordan goes on to enjoy this high society party hosted by Jay Gatsby, flittering among the masses.  Like a bee, she moves from flower to flower, or in her case person to person.  Similar to the symbiotic relationship between bees and flowers, Baker engages in an [information] exchange.  She pollinates by offering information and gathers nectar in the form of information.  Her statement suggests that such things could not occur in a smaller setting because the opportunity to syphon through personalities and ideologies does not present itself (touching once more on the relationship between embodiment and consciousness/awareness).  Moreover, her preference for obscurity within these crowds is demonstrative of her ability to situate herself among these personalities and identities (within this makeshift society of socialites).  While we are far from the days of flapper girls and the Jazz age, the idea of hiding out in the open is far from lost.  As a society we have not yet abandoned the notion situating ourselves among the myriad of personalities and ideologies that exist in mainstream society as we attempt to construct our identities. 

Today the high society parties in which we attempt to situate ourselves or construct our identities come to us in the form of social networking.  Bronwyn Williams stated that as we develop our identities via social networking “the writer of the page has composed to construct a performance of identity.” (25).  The advent of recent advancements in technology suggest that we interact more with each other along these long distance channels.  We experience more exposure to an interactive culture/popular culture which contributes to the construction of our identities:  personalities and ideologies.  Similar to the Baker’s preference, even we are prone pretentiousness when our favorite underground social networking site becomes more prevalent in mainstream society.  According to Bill Howard once a social networking site becomes more aligned with the tenets of “conventional wisdom” (14) its growth and popularity “makes a social networking site both impersonal and undesirable" (14).  We often believe that the ways in which we situate ourselves among social networking sites may define our identities.  In the same way, this type of development also suggests that sometimes social networking sites develop their own idnetities through their growth, acceptance, or rejection by mainstream soceity.

Another aspect prevalent among social networking, which can also be found within the context of a high society party, is the ability to define a system or ideology.  The idea of convergence theory suggests that through the medium of technology, connections among economic, cultural, historical, and social systems will occur.  Williams states, that “contemporary convergence culture [is] both filtered through and use[s] popular culture” (26) to establish a conception of ideology in mainstream society.  Alluding to Gee’s concept of affinity spaces, she contends that social networking provides an opportunity (as well as the ability) to “affiliate with others to share knowledge and gain knowledge…distributed and dispersed across many different people, places, Internet sites, and modalities” (32).  Through this type of socialization we understand that we now have the ability and opportunity to create new knowledge, influence new/existing knowledge, and develop our own identities and ideologies (as well as that of others) because the “definitions of literacy and performances of identity are complex social phenomena situated in cultural context” (29).  Like the denizens of the East Egg we develop our identities and ideology through the cultural context of socializtion; however, in our day we call it Facebook. 

 

An Academic Scavenger Hunt:

WebQuest as New Media...Project Proposal

Vision & Rationale:

For the purposes of this project I would like to explore the use of a WebQuest as an effective method of instruction and teaching tool.  According to www.teAchnology.com a WebQuest is an interactive tool designed to engage students in inquiry based learning.  It is a pedagogical/educational scavenger hunt in which students are asked to make a discovery or complete a task through their exploration of web based resources provided by their teacher.  Although it may seem one-dimensional in so far as students are simply finding the answer to one question, a WebQuest can facilitate the critical analysis of a particular subject or topic.  Because this academic adventure is orchestrated by the teacher, teachers can tailor students’ learning to include a myriad of innovative discoveries and new information simply based on the resources/information they choose to present to their student.  Student learning does not have to stop at simply finding the answer to a question.  Teachers can use this inquiry-based activity to make learning continuous.  Teachers can artfully present extra useful/interesting facts and information to their students; they can make anything a teachable moment, demonstrating that learning can happen at any time, and really never stops.  The converse of this is that students may also be limited to the information/resources provided by teachers; however, simply engaging in this activity can provide students with opportunities to develop technological and academic literacy, as well as research skills.    Students learn how to maneuver the web for academic/informational purposes.  Moreover, because it is suggested that this activity usually culminates in a written product which describes students’ discovery process and findings (i.e., the answer to the question) this activity takes the scientific method to another level and students are performing amateur research.  This type of guided practice activity creates a learning environment which provides students and teachers with agency/autonomy as they attempt to find answers or create “new” knowledge.  

As a part of this project I would like to explore the possibility of creating an eye catching document/presentation (maybe using Prezi or an interactive map) which draws students in and literally takes them on an academic journey.  I want to show how this interactive teaching tool/instructional method can be used to supplement and facilitate teaching and learning.  What’s more I hope to show that this one tool does all of this all at the same time.   

Questions to Consider:

1.      How much agency/power do teachers and/or students have over their own teaching/learning as they engage in this type of inquiry-based activity?

2.      How much autonomy is afforded to students or teachers with regard to teaching/learning as they engage in this activity?  What are their constraints/boundaries as they engage in this inquiry-based activity?  What do you feel is holding them back or propelling them forward?

3.      Does agency/power, and autonomy even exist in a WebQuest (participation, design, etc.)?

4.      Are students/teachers actually able to create any “new” knowledge or expand/add to what they already know by completing a WebQuest?

5.      Does this type of technologically based activity facilitate students or enable them?  Does something like this make students (and maybe even teachers) lazy?

6.      Is this a new version of the banking concept as described by Paulo Freire?  How do these types of activities facilitate or retard literacy skills (functional, technological, dominant vs. secondary).

7.      What is the effect of such activities, in which information is provided to us under the guise of discovery, on our academic/cultural identity/philosophy (how we write ourselves, etc.)?

8.      Consider medium/embodiment, how does this type of activity affect or change our consciousness/awareness/perceptions about what is being studied?

Theory/Ideas/Concepts (Authors)

Toffoletti, Baudrillard, Derrida, Badmington – Simulated Knowledge, Copies of the   Original, Effects of Consumption/Appropriation of “original” idea – becoming a part of the mainstream/dominant discourse, Limitations/Ability to create “new” knowledge or

Hayles, Welch, Bolter:  5 Canons of Rhetoric, Embodiment/Form/Medium à Perceptions, Consciousness, Awareness, Power, Reproduction

Hayles – Informational Prostheses – Building ourselves through the appropriation of informational patterns

Identity Development:  Writing ourselves/identities/philosophies

A Comment Turned Blog Post...

The Green Cycle...or the Cycle of Simulation?
This post is an adapation of a comment/discussion from a previous blog post:

One theme/trend that I've noticed throughout most, if not all, of our readings this semester is that of embodiment (form, medium -- whatever you want to call it), and its effects on the way we perceive information and knowledge.  Moreover, as I continue to consider this notion of knowledge being a "simulation of its predecessor" or "copies/simulations influenced...by perception" it's making me wonder how much agency/power we actually have in creating new knowledge; and how much, if any, of it is authentic (if there is such a thing as authenticity given the theoretical perceptions of people like Hayles, Thacker, Toffoletti, and Plato). I feel like in our quest to try and help people learn, understand, or even relate to knowledge and information we end up reducing knowledge/information or identity into particular aspects vis-a-vis simulation rather than creating something new.  In a previous comment I noted that what really gets me is how our relationships to this information is always shaped by someone else's perspective...it's like a version of the green cycle...information has been REDUCED to a particular set of concepts, ultimately REUSED since knowledge or what we have come to consider knowledge is a simulation of some other set of ideas, thereby RECYCLED to be perceived of as something else (even though we are learning it's nothing new). 

Attempts to restore "original" or create "new" knowledge are futile because upon changing its form or being affected by "new" knowledge the "original" no longer (or never) exists.  Ultimately we succeed in objectifying and commidifying knowledge (as we do with all things in our consumerist society).

On Life & Death: Life Gems?

On Life & Death: 
Life Gems?

Upon embarking on these extra topics we were asked to consider for this week Toffoletti’s words continued to run through my mind.  As she described the discarded Barbie dolls she found at a local flea market, she stated that these dolls were waiting to be “taken and used in another context” (57).  She suggested that knowledge, information, objects are mere simulations of their predecessors.  Using the Barbie doll she demonstrated how knowledge, information, and objects can transform or be transformed based on individual experiences or perceptions.  The idea of Life Gem is an obvious representation of the concepts described by Toffoletti.  The product promises to take a lock of hair or cremated ashes and transform it into another carbon based substance to commemorate the life of an organism (I mean its suggested use is for human beings, but who says a loved one cannot be your pet?).  The transformation of one object to another is apparent here; however, we also see the ability of the object to transcend boundaries of knowledge and representation through the medium in which it is presented (form/embodiment).  It is no ordinary diamond after all.  The diamond produced by Life Gem has clearly transformed/changed its medium to represent your loved one in a new (and exciting?) way.  I cannot deny that this concept is intriguing…it immediately engendered visions of Han Solo -- frozen in carbonite, Mel Gibson in Forever Young -- cryogenically frozen, even Brendan Fraser in Encino Man – preserved in a block of ice.  Each character represented a transformation of identity, perceptions, and knowledge with regard to their current state (embodiment) in society.  They meant something different for society, just as it meant something different for them.