Essay 3: Digital Learning

Online classes are becoming increasingly popular within mainframe society. Turn on the television or listen to the radio and there is probably a advertisement for some form of online university. This is because the convenience has appeal to anyone wanting a college degree. From the single mother working two full-time jobs to the new high school graduate to the career driven woman who wants to get an master’s degree while keeping her full-time job, online classes are becoming the normal educational tool. With the new format of the classroom, different techniques and rules apply. Ong, Baron, and the NY times analyze some of the concepts that will be engaged in this essay.

The technology of online classes is only possible with the technology of the computer and essentially writing. In ancient cultures, writing was non-existent. Early Greek society, for example, was considered an oral culture because writing was not created. Eventually someone did create the alphabet and writing. Although thinking of writing as a new technology is farfetched in our minds, it wasn’t for the people at that time. In Ong’s essay, “Writing is a Technology that Restructures Thought,” he describes Plato’s Socrates reaction to writing: “writing…is inhuman, pretending to establish outside the mind what in reality can only be in the mind. Writing is simply a thing, something to be manipulated , something inhuman, artificial , a manufactured product” (Ong 21). Plato’s Socrates, though trying to be insulting, makes some interesting and true points. Writing is “artificial, a manufactured product” because it didn’t come from nature, it is a man made product. What I find interesting is his argument that it is non-human, because it is human. Only humans created writing, no other species are capable. It can be argued that all species are oral (with the vast “talking” within the rainforest), but only humans can use writing. And although writing was new for Plato’s Socrates at that time, we cannot live without it today.

Writing as a technology changes the way we interact as a society and culture. Oral cultures for example got (and get) their information from word of mouth, and as a consequence stories changed. Writing is permanent; it can’t be changed (at least when it is printed) unless someone creates a different piece of writing separately. This is important in history as a discourse. Written documents provide a look into the past. Ong states that “writing separates past from present” (26). This can be exemplified by early writings, like The Iliad of Homer. Without his stories written down, people today may have heard a extremely different story than that of the people in Homer’s day. By having this story written down, we can understand and listen to the same story that was told centuries ago. Our society today views writing and the ability to write important to survive. Many jobs entail a degree of the ability to read and write and most successful people can. If our society was an oral one, I believe things would run quite differently.

Computers are another technology that has increased in use over the past 30 years. People rely on computers for their jobs, school, and everyday lives. As the same with writing, computers change the way people interact in society. Information and knowledge are exchanged at a faster rate than a piece of paper can. This digital technology can also complicate things. Baron describes some conflicts with computers and internet including fraud and authenticity (80-81). With more papers, journals, books, textbooks, etc on the internet, it is more difficult to judge the reality of what is written. With so many people being able to access anything, anything can be written and posted. With books in print, for example, we know who wrote it, and where it came from. The NY Times article also addresses this issue. With children being able to access these areas, the learning they acquire is different than in a traditional classroom. This is where online classes come into discussion. With the increases and different uses of developing technology (from writing to computers) children and students are learning differently than before and I believe we as society must adhere to these changes. Online classes are a step towards shaping our lives to our changing society and culture.

{conclusion}

My mind is a whirlwind right now with the end of the semester approaching, so I think I might go off on a tangent in this essay. I think I need to rethink my introduction. I know what I want to say, but the way to say it right now, I’m having problems. I will put in my conclusion when I have a firm idea on my concept. I just wanted insight if this seems like a good direction to go. Also, I will have to go back and look at that NY times article to maybe find a quote, and Baron. THANKS!

Delpit and Kosut Reflection

I was truly inspired by Delpit when I read her essay, and it made me rethink Gee. I am a firm believer in people being able to be more than what they were “born into”. My lived experience sort of touches on this topic. My cousin was born with cerebral palsy and is in a wheelchair and also suffers from some cognitive disabilities. There were times that I thought he would have a lot of troubles in school and probably have a difficult time obtaining a job. However, after 18 years, I see him growing up and becoming more than a person in a wheelchair struggling in life. His new best friend is a 24 year old man in a wheelchair as well with more severe cognitive disabilities. It warms my heart when I see that my cousin, Adam, looks up to his friend because his friend got a degree at a university and has a job as a lecturer speaking about being independent with a disability. Although both were born in middle class, I think it still has the same effect that no matter what “hand you are dealt”, you can achieve success in whatever you choose. My cousin has inspired me as a future teacher to take every challenge and face it and hopefully inspire my students to achieve what they desire. Although Gee does make some good points on conflicts of moving between discourses, I believe, like Delpit, that people can and will accomplish what they want with the right motivation (ie, a teacher who pushes them to achieve it).

Gee Reflection

In this blog, I wanted to address my question about secondary discourses? When I first read Gee, I understood that the family realm represents primary discourses, and a secondary discourse was like in a school setting. When I read Diane’s blog about the nurse as a secondary discourse, I was confused. If family is the primary, and school is the secondary, wouldn’t that make the nurse a tertiary? Upon more reflection, I realized that Gee mentions the conflicts and tensions of various secondary discourses and it sort of made sense. But another question arose about mastery of the secondary discourse: does one really master the secondary discourse as school? If so, how? I understand the concept of a nurse as a secondary discourse and mastering that through acquisition and learning.

I wanted to sort of bring in my own experience to relate to acquisition and learning and Gee’s points. My primary discourse is my family life as a middle working class Caucasian American. Through filtering I acquired English as my primary language and my cultural and traditional views involve going to school, finding a job, getting married, and starting my own family. As I moved to my secondary discourse in school, I learned and acquired various skills to in the future apply to another secondary discourse, which in my case, is a science teacher. Though I am only in the process of learning, with student teaching and field work I hope to acquire skills that will better place me within that discourse. One of Gee’s points is that acquisition helps a person better master that discourse, and I hope student teaching helps me to do that. Also, another point he makes is that I can mushfake a discourse to try and pretend I am fluent in it, and I compared this to my initial entry into school. I pretended to involve my self into the secondary discourse, and eventually through acquisition, I entered the school discourse.

Please feel free to respond to my question above. Thanks

Haas and Bartholomae Quotes

In Bartholomae, he states “to speak to us as a person of status or privilege, the writer can either speak to us in our terms-in the privileged language of university discourse-or, in default (or in defiance), he can speak to us as though we were children, offering us the wisdom of experience” (514).

To me, this is stating that a student’, or scientist in Haas’ case study, language, tone and vocabulary determine his audience and how he views them. Does the student have the advanced writing skills to speak within the academic discourse? Or do they think they know and offer some knowledge in the form of wisdom? A writer must not only master concepts and knowledge within a particular discipline, but also learn to write with authority to engage in scientific discourse. The steps to this includes many of Bartholomae’s ideas including using mimicking, relying less on grammar and the rejection of commonplaces, which seem to complicate essays more than enhance them.

The complementing quote from Haas I chose states “in general, these educators have argued that in order to understand, use, and judge scientific content-and, of course, scientific content remains of vital importance to science educators-students need a meta-understanding of the motives of science and scientists and the history of scientific concepts” (359).

Understanding of scientific figures and facts is important, and as we learned with Eliza’s progress, but also knowing views and opinions of other scientists becomes significant in engaging in the discourse of that field. Bartholomae would agree with understanding facts and knowledge because it is part of mimicking, copying other ideas until you’ve become advanced enough to create your own. The only thing I can think of that would complicate these two quotes if a student relied too much on context and did not contribute their own ideas to the conversation, or discourse.

Relection Essay: Bartholomae

As I reflect back on my essay and Bartholomae's thought on it, I have to say he would not be impressed. I would probably be considered a basic writer according to him, but would probably place somewhat well on a placement test. As I reread my essay, I notice many things. First, I noticed that I was definately trying to improve my grammar, a technique that will be hard to rid of. Also, I became aware of the fact that I use commonplaces throughout my essay. There weren't any explanations to my statements. I assumed my audience knew what I was talking about and in actuality, I did not even know. Another point I observed was that while writing my essay, I was not aware of my reader. Myself being the reader, I wanted more elaboration on some of my reasons. A statement I used to describe creativity was: "Creativity is a relfection of the brains thought, memories, and emotion." After I read this I ask out loud, "And how?" I wanted more answers from this essay.

Comparing my essay to one in Inventing the University, I would have to compare it to the "While Shoes" essay, not that I want to. Without reading Bartholomae, I would have compared it to an advanced writer's paper. My analytical view on grammar, my short explanations, and my wide use of commonplaces give my essay a lower grade. Bartholomae's views and opinions helped me to understand my writing and style. I have become more aware of what constitutes an advanced writer and now know how to strive to achieve that status. Hopefully with future discussions, I can learn even more.

I do still question his view on writing to your specific audience and how far that is taken before you start to lose your own personality.