After class, I couldn’t stop thinking about our discussion on the car ride home. So, here are some further thoughts.
First, for the creative writing folks, here’s how I see your stance (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong). Number one – as I said in class – I see it as overly romantic; to me, it’s absurd to think that something is more fulfilling when it’s made artificially more difficult. Number two – and I don’t mean to be insulting – the proliferation of writing on the Internet has made writing into a far less specialized field, filled with more writers writing than ever before. Is there insecurity about your role in the writing world when we are at a point in time where anyone can ostensibly become “a writer?” After all, I'm not a creative writing major, but I have made a semi-career out of creative writing for a handful of websites. Is this kind of situation threatening to you? Maybe this is more of a philosophical question ("What is a writer?"), but I’d like to know.
Number three, I don’t think computers are turning us into depressed automatons. Instead, they provide us with an unprecedented amount of social choices that were not available before the Internet. If I had to limit my communication to the people I could only talk with face-to-face, I would have never met some of the smartest, funniest people I know. And my presence on the Internet has allowed me to make a variety of real-life friends who I often see face-to-face (or as often as I can get back to Youngstown). I have no problem with this.
Here are my main points on the pro-computer side:
Writing with computers can give you a real audience.
Yes, you no longer have to think about your “audience” in rhetorical terms – it actually exists! This gives students a real purpose for writing, and also feedback on their writing, which we learned can be an immensely valuable thing. Students will also get the feeling that their writing will do more than sit on your desk until it’s graded.
Computers have created a generation of more readers and writers than ever before.
This is impossible to ignore, given the rise of blogs and other forms of Internet communication. People are now writing critically about culture, their lives, politics, entertainment, and other subjects. This would be impossible on such a large scale 15 years ago. And do you honestly think people in the pre-Internet days were articulating their opinions in writing even 5% as much as they do today? Computers have given writing more value, and have given the power of the written word to a group of people that previously did not have it. I can’t see how anyone couldn’t be excited about that – there’s more to read out there than ever before.
The snobbish coteries of old have been replaced with a democratic community of readers and writers constantly sharing information. What’s not to like?
I have some other points, but these are my two main ones. I’d like to know what everyone thinks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Technology is fine. The internet is fine. It is great in fact. It allows for greater communication, and immediate information. Notice that I'm responding through a blog; it is read because of the internet; it cites information found on the internet; the internet is a good thing. However, it is not the only thing, and probably not the best thing. This is because the internet can also create problems, real problems, that inhibit the ability to really connect. Read the article (found via the internet)recently in Time for this very point: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1668441,00.html
This internet generation suffers from depression at a somewhat alarming rate. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that a reason might be the constant interaction with a computer screen rather than interaction with real humans and communities. Online communities are okay and not evil, but they provide little fulfillment.
Using a computer in moderation is fine, but limiting real (yes, real, authentic, genuine) communication with others, in favor of communication through a machine, becoming like a machine, provides quick, surface gratification, but limits any substance. Rather, it creates isolation, if emphasized as the primary means to communicate. Again, in moderation it is fine.
In terms of our class: the bottom line is that students know how to use a computer. As mentioned in class, this generation feels very much at ease with a computer. Why would I teach to write through these. They know how to write through these, better than I do. I am here to teach them in a way that improves their writing overall, not their computer skills.
The suggestion that Intro to Comp. should help create success in the business world is ridiculous. Intro. to Comp. teaches how to compose, think, express, and create ideas. Business and techinal writing classes can prepare students for the business world. What a perverse view of the university and the English department - to primarily prepare students to get bigger paychecks. (The same students who were taught in primary and secondary school that success on standarized tests is most important).
I'm overly romantic, though? That's interesting, and makes little sense in regards to the larger discussion.
What was suggested was not to enforce strict handwriting skills (even though, scribbling initial drafts on paper has proven to allow for greater creative juices to flow), but to allow the use of computers, possibly even encourage them, but not reinforce a dependancy on them already existing in society.
The Time article mentioned at the beginning describes how limiting real human relationships, not mediated by a machine and viewed digitally, limits humans' ability to interact: "But really, these sites aren't about connecting and reconnecting. They're a platform for self-branding. Old people are always worrying that our blogging and personal websites and MySpace profiles are taking away our privacy, but they clearly don't understand the word privacy. We're not sharing things we don't want other people to know. We're showing you our best posed, retouched photos. We're listing the Pynchon books we want you to think we've read all the way through. We're allowing other people to write whatever they want about us on our walls, unless we don't like it, in which case we just erase it. If we had that much privacy in real life, the bathrooms at that Minnesota airport would be empty."
Clearly, the internet and computers are useful. A larger problem exists in society concerning isoloation and depression among internet users. In the last week, a study was published showing that more and more internet users are beginning to favor surfacing the web over sex!
I think the creative writers' point (at least my own), was not that they we are anti-internet/computer, or that students should be forced to write by hand (though, they'll be encouraged), but that computers are already so much a part of our culture, sometimes to our detriment, that we don't need to reinforce this. We'll stick to teaching composition (not what kind of pen, computer, or paper to use - but actually how to write - stone tablets are fine, really).
In terms of insecurity: I'm insecure about my communties, large and small - they are falling apart. People on the bus or subway don't want to talk to each other. They had cell phones, iPods, Blackberries, and their own inner thoughts to avoid contact with others.
Lastly in regards to the notion that not all of students are going to be English majors (which again, distracted from the larger point I was trying to make): Not all students taking college writing are English students, or interested in writing, true. Not all intro to Psychology students are Psych. majors, not all students taking a history requirement are history majors, and so on. However, Intro. to Psychology is still taught as a Psychology course; a general requirement for History is History, and will be taught as such. How about teaching an English class as an English class, even if not everyone there likes English.
And now, I'm done looking into this screen. Depressed for having sat here and blogged so long, and am going to go have coffee with friends, run on a trail, or something else that is... real.
“Technology is fine. The internet is fine. It is great in fact. It allows for greater communication, and immediate information. Notice that I'm responding through a blog; it is read because of the internet; it cites information found on the internet; the internet is a good thing. However, it is not the only thing, and probably not the best thing. This is because the internet can also create problems, real problems, that inhibit the ability to really connect. Read the article (found via the internet)recently in Time for this very point: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1668441,00.html”
Corporate-run online networking sites are built to prey upon naïve college students. But most people outgrow them in time (I’ve seen it happen). Besides, there are bigger fish to fry on the Internet, like child pornography. It’s heinous, and the Internet has contributed to its spread, but I’m not willing to brush off the Internet just because it happens to contain the most disgusting material to ever exist.
“This internet generation suffers from depression at a somewhat alarming rate. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that a reason might be the constant interaction with a computer screen rather than interaction with real humans and communities. Online communities are okay and not evil, but they provide little fulfillment.”
That’s a pretty weak limb you’re out on, mainly because your argument is rooted in a logical fallacy. Correlation does not equal causation. I could make a point as valid as yours by saying that the rise of Fallout Boy is causing a generation to become depressed (I know it’s depressing me). Though some better causes of depression could be politics, war, and the economy – not to mention depression being over-diagnosed in teenagers.
“The Time article mentioned at the beginning describes how limiting real human relationships, not mediated by a machine and viewed digitally, limits humans' ability to interact: "But really, these sites aren't about connecting and reconnecting. They're a platform for self-branding. Old people are always worrying that our blogging and personal websites and MySpace profiles are taking away our privacy, but they clearly don't understand the word privacy. We're not sharing things we don't want other people to know. We're showing you our best posed, retouched photos. We're listing the Pynchon books we want you to think we've read all the way through. We're allowing other people to write whatever they want about us on our walls, unless we don't like it, in which case we just erase it. If we had that much privacy in real life, the bathrooms at that Minnesota airport would be empty."”
The writer is making the assumption that people actually present themselves as who they are in real life (off of the computer). But this is an opinion piece, agreeing with the your own opinion. If you’re going to make such a broad claim that the Internet is depressing and alienating an entire generation, I’d like to see an actual study.
“In terms of insecurity: I'm insecure about my communties, large and small - they are falling apart. People on the bus or subway don't want to talk to each other. They had cell phones, iPods, Blackberries, and their own inner thoughts to avoid contact with others.”
This is something every generation experiences. It was once thought that the radio was going to destroy the art of conversation and communication. The radio! Generations not on board with technology often experience culture shock with paradigm shifts. If you don’t believe me, look at every other concept out there that was supposed to turn an entire generation into anti-social dullards. We’ve been doing just fine with rock and roll, comic books, television, and cell phones.
“And now, I'm done looking into this screen. Depressed for having sat here and blogged so long, and am going to go have coffee with friends, run on a trail, or something else that is... real.”
Is that passive aggression, or am I stuck in The Matrix again? Clearly my life is inferior because I blog :(
Everyone is so angry all of the sudden! What happened to our peaceful class that chomped on doughnuts and peeps? I would just like to address the issue of "Not all students taking Intro to Comp" are English majors. They aren't. And while intro to psych is still taught as a psych class, it doesn't delve deeply into the subject. Introductory students, are not thrown into the farthest flung theories of the science. So, as intro to comp teachers, we cannot assume that students want to compose, or even want to learn to compose beyond what is practically needed to fuction and thrive in their home and professional lives. And, in those home and professional lives, the majority of writing is done via the computer. Therefore, we need to teach students to function on the computer and to use it as a tool for creating and expressing ideas.
Now, it is true that most students know how to use a computer. But, that is not what is being taught in 11011 or any of the other comp courses. Students are not told how to switch a computer o (Unless they need to be told,) rather they are told how to use it to create writing. (This goes beyond just typing a document in Word.) In one of my previous classes, for example, I had to create a sound project, in which I argued a point. This project was highly illuminating for me. It gave me the opportunity to not only "write" my argument, but also voice it, literally. Using the computer, also allowed me to provide clips from movies for my audience, to stress the point I was making in my paper. (I was talking about the way in which woman are portrayed in horror films.)
One final point.... My senior year of undergrad, I got the opportunity to have a writing internship with the commencement offices at KSU. In this internship, I did ALL of my work and composing through the computer. (I was very unprepared for this because my English classes had only stressed composing in Word.) My writing internship director expected me to write for an online e-zine, create documents in MS publisher, and send emails and news briefs via email to various people working for Human Resources at KSU. Writing online or through a computer IS different, and I WAS unprepared for it, and it stressed me out for a bit till I was able to readjust myself. (I had to learn about using the visual aspects of internet writing and how that came it play etc.) I want my students to be prepared for these kinds of situations. I want to teach them how to do writing in all venues, including the old-fasioned pen and paper venue. It is all very different.
I am not sure why everyone is having such an emotional response to this argument. (We ALL did, even Pam.) Like I said, we do not need to make technology the focus of our classes, but it must be a component, otherwise we are leaving our students unprepared for the world outside the University. Myspace and Facebook are fun for the students to use, and they can use them very well, but we need to help them tap into the internet as a rhetorical space. That is what WILL be required of them in the future.
Please... No one hurl any angry messages at me. I'm in the middle of both arguments. As a creative writer, I too write my stories out long hand, before putting them on the computer, but I think that is just my preference. Future generations may feel far more comfortable in front of the computer. Whatever gets them writing, right?
Oh, and I love to bike on trails and swim in the ocean, and write in the woods. :-)
be nice to me!
fall out boy depresses me, too!
i should have checked the blog first. i have a huge jeremiad that i also prepared to post. it's not as succinct as any here ... can i post it anyway? << example of self-censorship. JUST KIDDING.
here it is. i'll respond in a separate post to issues you all raised. it'd be way too much to include here.
----
I’m sure I’m not the only one who left today’s class session with unresolved feelings toward computers in the classroom. All evening I’ve been thinking about what’s right: technological classrooms or no? Because I was (and still am) torn, I found myself resorting to a pro/con thingie. Here’s what I came up with; feel free to add or argue anything.
Pros:
-real life prep
-using a medium students know
-enhances learning (visuals, immediate answers, etc.)
-brings out responses from otherwise shy students
-makes public (and more permanent) class discussions
-speed (able to do more things, and more things at once)
-global connection
Cons:
-are we isolating ourselves in white noise? (Jamies depression stat freaked me out!)
-students may be uninterested in using a medium typically reserved for entertainment (I’m thinking of Pam’s Facebook study)
-encourages shy people to stay shy—develops no personal skills
-not 100% reliable, yet
-“too fast” to quote the great Annie Proulx, author of the Shipping News
-answers at our fingertips may lead to skills lost, not learned (grammar check, sparknotes, etc.)
Even with this great comparison chart, I wasn’t sure how I felt. So I just started writing in my journal. One of my favorite quotes comes from Peter Elbow: “The only cure is to damn the torpedoes and write!” So here are some rambling thoughts. There’s some conclusion, somewhere. I’ll probably edit a bunch as I go.
The typing vs. handwriting debate is only small beans for me. (Though analyzing handwriting is one of my favorite things to do. So Bob—don’t let your cursive slip entirely. I especially love men’s cursive. Also, did you know, it’s not an uncommon practice in France to have to submit a handwriting sample for analysis before being hired? Also, I just learned that Bill Clinton wrote his entire last book by hand! Is it a “romantic” notion after all, or is it more than that? For me, and perhaps for Clinton and Proulx, writing by hand means true ownership. What a tangent. One more thing: an interesting article that analyzes Clinton and Lewinsky’s handwriting!: http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/19980927write2.asp)
Anyway . . . What concerns me is the impersonal nature of most technology. Just walk through campus—everyone is texting, talking on the phone, or plugged in to their ipod. We’re all walking zombies! And then many of these individuals enter classrooms where computers are humming behind them and regularly employed in class activities. Then, when the day’s over, many head home and sit, most likely for at least a bit of their evening to check MySpace or Facebook. Now of course there are exceptions—there are always exceptions (I wish I was one of them, in this case)—but I think the profile I’ve created here isn’t too exaggerated.
It’s a very valid point to say that millions of people are “connecting” (sometimes internationally) on the internet everyday. (I’m about to write my boyfriend in Sydney, Australia an e-mail.) But at what cost does this come to our interpersonal, social skills? I agree that an online chatroom can be a highly effective educative tool (it really does require everyone to contribute, especially when used during class time), but I think the argument that it aids those anxious socially is absolutely bogus. Perhaps this is true in the short term, but what happens when the semester ends? It’s a bandaid solution. If anything, I think computers (and much of technology) can seriously hinder one’s ability to communicate with others. If instant messenger is the only comfortable means in which a student can communicate confidently, isn’t the program more of a problem than it is a solution? Shy or anxious or socially challenged students cannot live through a Vista chatroom their entire lives. As many of us said in class, there’s still something to be said for face-to-face communication. I think regular discussion really teaches skills you can’t get any other way.
For those arguing that a techno classroom prepares students for the real world, I contest: what about the immense importance of being able to talk to people, face to face? My parents (one a stock broker and the other a private business owner who sometimes worry for my career as a poet) recently sent me an article announcing a rising trend. Corporations and marketing firms are starting to target employees with a liberal arts background and even MFA grads!!! Supposedly this is due to our extensive training in communication! No matter there’s little to no experience with business—what matters is the ability to talk to people. I experienced this first hand a few months ago. Moving from NY to Kent was a big shift; because I wasn’t sure exactly what I was going to do for income, I decided to take my parents up on their suggestion to head to the business world. I even entertained the idea of a sales job in Cleveland (though I know I would have HATED it) because it paid well and had crazy opportunities for advancement, which means more money. Well. I went through the first interview, the second, and finally the third—which was shadowing an employee for a day “on the field,” as they called it. At the end of it all, they offered me the job on their “team” because I could “talk to people.” And yeah, that is a quote! And, this was a highly technological sales position (representing Google and Sprint), yet they asked little of my credentials with technology. (Maybe they just assumed..? I really don’t know.) (This all said, it’s only fair to disclose that my techno-savviness did score some points with Dr. Huot during my KSU interview. He was thrilled I could operate both a Mac and a PC.) (Can I put two parantheticals back to back? What about three?)
In my own class, I use the computers occasionally in class and have them log onto an online discussion forum at home regularly. While the discussion board is amazing in many ways, there is something hollow—fabricated, even—in the student responses. Perhaps this is my fault as a teacher (and discussion topic poster), but there is an undeniable emptiness in the online conversations. Most often, students directly respond to my prompt with a short answer—rarely citing anything other than their own opinion. In other words, very little critical thinking is happening. All of the responses are safe, unoffending, and so on. Thinking on it now, I seriously doubt it’s possible for my e-classroom to home a debate as fiery as the one we had today in class, face-to-face. So I’ll say it again. There’s something about face-to-face discussion. I think a lot of it is the instantaneousness of it.
Judith Butler claims that all identities are created and performed, and while I agree with her, I think the world wide web only furthers this phenomenon. I’m reminded of one of my friends, who jokingly claims that she’s an “internet celebrity” because of her awesome Facebook profile. Again, not everyone engages in this, but check out MySpace or Facebook sometime. Jamie and I were chatting before class and he told me that he thinks those websites really invite identity creation. I think he’s so right. People who use these websites (myself included) often choose a profile picture or list certain activities to appeal to the swarming populous that browse the site—not to honestly represent themselves. A few weeks ago, I was going to change my Facebook profile picture. I was on the phone with my boyfriend and asked him what “look” I should go for: sexy, classic, or outdoorsy. He laughed because of my inclusion of outdoorsy. I laughed because I quickly realized it was a ridiculous question to ask.
So maybe MySpace and Facebook are different. We’re not asking them to use social networking sites in the classroom, after all. But I think the point can be applied: students are aware of their audience, and sites such as MySpace and Facebook have made them hyper-aware. The argument that the internet allows students to be candid doesn’t quite hold up for me, at least not completely. Rather, I think it gives students the opportunity to self-censor. (As I mentioned, I think this is what’s happening in my class’ online discussion group.) I’m a big advocate of the round table discussion format. A set up like this is more likely to produce candid student responses—because of that spontaneous, on-your feet aspect inherent to face-to-face conversation.
But not everyone responds in class discussions, right? Well, why can’t we make it mandatory to respond, just as it’s mandatory to blog or chat? I had a teacher who had a rule like this; every member of the class had to contribute at least one comment every class. If we didn’t volunteer, she’d ask us what we were thinking, and pull us in to the discussion. Our classroom consisted of one large round table—and that’s all we needed. Reflecting on my career as a student, this was one of my favorite courses. At first it was a very vulnerable and scary learning environment, but eventually I came to really value the class. I came to see that there was so much at stake in every class session. And the fact that everyone had to talk diminished my anxiety.
I think it’s actually pretty early to have a definite opinion on this issue. It is such a complex issue, and not much time has passed for us to see the results. I agree with Robbie McClintock, a professor at Columbia, who says: “We will be well into the twenty-first century before we see whether technology is a step forward or a step backward, whether it’s really positive or a reinforcement of the worst inertias in our culture.” But for the sake of some conclusion . . .
Technology is pretty freaking amazing, and there’s no denying its place in our society. But is it important enough to have in our classrooms? After writing all this, it’s pretty obvious I’m more traditional at heart. Computers in the classroom? Not really for me. The occasional visit to the lab? Yeah, sure. At home? Totally. This class alone has shown me the awesome value of blogging. But in class, with everyone’s back turned, typing and reading and scrolling silently? It kind of frightens me.
"Anyway . . . What concerns me is the impersonal nature of most technology. Just walk through campus—everyone is texting, talking on the phone, or plugged in to their ipod. We’re all walking zombies!"
I think this is a bit of generation-gap (a small gap) hyperbole. When I walk through campus, I still see people talking to each other like human beings, not walking in trances or eating brains. But getting from point A to point B is boring, especially when you're alone. So why shouldn't people find ways to entertain themselves on the boring walks to and from places on campus? In a ten minute walk, I could listen to part of a podcast talking about a topic I'm interested in, or I could listen to cars drive by. I'll let you decide what's more interesting.
I ask you again to look at history and see what harmless nonsense older generations scoffed at. I'll leave you with a quote from my friend on the matter: "It's not new that people look at a new piece of technology and jump to the conclusion that it's full of witches."
Hey everyone,
Joe Torre is going to get fired!!!! Isn't that awesome???
We are getting a little feisty on here. Hope no one's taking anything personally. Jamie: I relate completely to your desire to be away from the computer and all things techno. Too bad I am addicted to all of it. Bob: I think it's awesome you blog. I actually really enjoy reading everything you write on here. No joke! I love that you used the word "dullard." 50 points to Gryffindor. Ashley: I think what you wrote is pretty awesome. I think I'm most aligned with your ideas, which are more moderate. I think this: "Like I said, we do not need to make technology the focus of our classes, but it must be a component, otherwise we are leaving our students unprepared for the world outside the University. Myspace and Facebook are fun for the students to use, and they can use them very well, but we need to help them tap into the internet as a rhetorical space. That is what WILL be required of them in the future." is really wise.
Now for some more specific comments.
I was also put off by the correlation between what we choose to teach and our students' future careers. (Even though I went on a huge tangent about my own career history in my first post.) While we do want to prepare our students for life after college, teaching certain skills so they're able to land a job is a notion very similar to that of "teaching to the standardized test" (which we demonized a few weeks ago). Besides, I believe teaching students technological skills are secondary to teaching interpersonal skills, even when considering their future as an employee somewhere.
I could praise the Internet all day. If Wikipedia ran for President in '08, I'd vote for it. But I also think its presence has made us seriously neglect (and maybe even forget) the ability to educate ourselves without it. I'll never forget one education class in undergrad where the teacher walked in and ordered everyone back outside. "Go find a tree and learn from it," he said. We left the room sheepishly, wondering if he was even serious. We stayed outside for nearly half the class--each of us stationed at a different tree. We analyzed the bark, the leaves, the roots, the size of the trunk, what was growing around it, what bugs were crawling on it, which way the tree was leaning, and so on. I actually had learned--or at least surmised--a great deal. It was a really cool pedagogical lesson.
That's an interesting point about the radio. I remember when cellphones were thought to cause brain damage. I wrote an entire center-page spread on the issue for my high school newspaper, actually. (Though sometimes I think they're so ludicrously convenient that they must be bad for us.) But I have to get over this. At least a little--for my students' sake. Modernizing my teaching is only fair.
I don't have an actual study, but I think it's ok to generalize and include the rise of technology in with the depression stat--only because the internet is so extensive, and has really affected EVERY area of our lives. I'm going to look for something more conclusive, though. I don't think it'd be too difficult.
Well I don't think that's everything I wanted to respond to, but I'm totally tapped out. This convo has occupied me since class time! I love that!!!! But it's way past my bed time. In honor of communicating face-to-face, I'd be happy to talk further with any of you in person. A trip to Ray's, anyone? I think we could all go for the world's largest Budweiser after this.
I told you I'm addicted! Perhaps this blog thing can be as fiery as face-to-face discussion. Though there is that time delay thing.
I agree that an interesting podcast is better than the whir of cars--but why do I think that? Because it's the 00s and our brains always have to stimulated. Otherwise we implode.
I guess that's my issue with so much of technology: it has made it so there's always some noise, something to look at, something to occupy us.
Is this a bad thing, being occupied? Some might say we're maximizing our time. I myself think turning on the ipod or the tv or the computer are things that have become second nature. That's just how things are done. But what are the consequences? I don't know if enough people ask this question.
My belief is that this constant occupation can affect our bodies in negative ways. I think it was Carlson who brought up the idea of the "attention deficeit generation." We become bored so quickly--a ten minute walk to class and we need to be entertained! Of course now I'm getting off the topic of technology in the classroom.
I like your quote. "Full of witches." That's great. And true.
Here's a quote I like. Just typed "internet depression" into Google and came across this.
"University of Florida psychiatrist Dr. Nathan Shapira, who co-authored the Journal of Affective Disorders study and who coined the term 'internetomania' (aka internet addiction):
'It concerns me that we're bustling along blind. ... There is a tremendous amount of money going into the development of this technology and almost nothing going into understanding how it affects people. That may spell trouble ahead.'"
That's from a CNN article that discusses depression (and other mental issues) that are blamed on the Internet. Here's something I found that's perhaps a little more credible:
http://homenet.hcii.cs.cmu.edu/
One of the conclusions? "Greater use of the Internet is associated with increases in loneliness and symptoms of depression."
I'm sure there are studies that say the exact opposite, though.
We all love the internet. We all love the TV and the radio. They work for us. The point is, as with any medium, not to become dependent on them. Teachers in the last century did not depend on TV and radio to reach their students. Suggesting that a "teacher in 2007" cannot teach without emphasizing computers in the classroom reinforces a dependency.
There is plenty of research and common sense to support that isolation leads to depression. Becoming isolated through the internet is still isolation. The American Psychological Assocation and other groups have presented research on the matter. From the APA:
"But does the Internet cause the mental illness, or does mental illness lead people to abuse the Internet? Researchers tried to answer that question in a 1998 study by providing Internet access to 169 people who previously had not been able to log on from home. The researchers reported in American Psychologist that the more time these people spent online, the less time they spent with their families, the smaller their social circles became and the more depressed and lonely they felt. "Even for people who don't manifest addictive behavior, the Internet is almost an invitation to obsession," says Young."
Assume that the internet does not cause depression, but rather attracts depressed people. Even still, further isolation through online activity does not help depression.
The information age is upon us, but why not approach it as skeptics, rather than with both feet?
Also, human interaction develops the ability to think on one's feet, and conceive ideas and present them on the spot. It also presents social risks for individuals involved. Limiting this limits social adjustment. Constructing an identity online does so without the development of social skills obtained through the same risk taking that constructing an identity in "real life" provides (as opposed to one in "Second Life"). I don't have a study to back that up, though.
And now I'm really depressed that I've allowed myself to engage in a heated online debate. The irony is clear. A "Second Life" duel may be in order.
Also, I should mention that in previous blogs I noted the benefit of blogging in the classroom, and how technology can serve as a great equalizer for the disadvantaged. I still agree with myself, but am trying to emphasize that technology is not the only answer, and can even be a problem. Good composition teaching can still exist entirely outside of the computer lab.
Also, in terms of "politics, war, and the economy": If student activists filled the streets rather than the blogs, a bigger impression might be made on the general public.
Since I believe I am the person who's being referred to when a couple of you argue against college writing being preparation for students' worklives:
I, too, was a liberal arts major in college. I, too, believe in the value of a liberal arts education. My liberal arts education - particularly the hours logged in literature classes as an undergraduate - were immensely formative to me. And I think that the liberal arts have real power for some. But for us to ignore or resist the fact that the majority of our students - like the students Durst studied - have a very pragmatic reason for being in college is to disconnect from our devalue our students. The liberal arts tradition was born and took hold of colleges and universities in a time when the only people going to college were wealthy, white males. Historically, this group of people went to college to better themselves intellectually or spiritually but pragmatically, it didn't matter really what they learned because good, powerful jobs were waiting for them when they entered school. This is the history we rest on (and lots and lots of people have written about this; I can pass on sources if you're interested in exploring this further).
Since open admissions, the student body and their goals have changed a great deal. I went to school on the now-defunct Pell Grants. If I had not had those, I would not have been able to afford school. For me, getting a college education was pragmatic in a very real sense - I wanted a job. I wanted to participate in the life of my culture in a constructive way - not wanting to wait tables the rest of my life as I did full time while in college. If I'd encountered teachers who devalued my desire to acquire skills that I believed were necessary for my future, at eighteen or twenty, I would've been put off track, I would've been hurt, I would've been demoralized.
In my experience as a teacher on the other side of the desk, I've met a lot of students. The overwhelming majority of them are working full time while going to school (even here at a campus like Kent State). The overwhelming majority of them are paying for school out of their own pocket or are accumulating vast amounts of debt to be able to walk onto this campus.
For me to say to them that they should not see a college education as a means to an end is just wrong.
But I can realize that in my writing classes, while my goals for the writing course often intersect with those they'll need in their worklives: critical thinking, critical research, reading against the grain, writing in multiple contexts, communicating with real purpose, understanding audience constraints on communication, the importance of form. I can also realize that although they may have more business and industry focused classes, those are not likely to engage them in the critical thinking and rhetorically sophisticated writing practices my classes will. As mel's parents point out, many in business and industry value an applicant's ability to communicate over their content knowledge of business practice (and this has been the case since at least when I was an undergrad - english majors were some of the most sought after in a number of industries which were seemingly unrelated to business). And increasingly, the ability to communicate involves using the machines we are all using to have a very intense, personal, invested communication.
Are the machines making us more isolated? This seems to me to be one of the most robust and engaged and invested conversations we've had since the beginning of class.
pam
“Assume that the internet does not cause depression, but rather attracts depressed people. Even still, further isolation through online activity does not help depression.”
These people would have been just as isolated before the Internet, and would have probably stayed in their rooms reading books and building model planes all day. The Internet can be just one of the many things people turn to when they’re depressed, but it’s not the Internet’s job to fix them. I think a much bigger fear is that people who are depressed are going to turn to substance abuse. That’s a bigger concern. Yet, I'm not worried about all of the new beers out there (actually, I'm excited).
I’m also taking a offense to the comments that this discussion is becoming “mean.” As far as I can tell, there’s been a total of one catty comment to go along with quite a few people being assertive. Why are we shying away from being passionate about our beliefs? After all, we are condemned to our fate as English majors, so we had better make the most of it.
I also think we're getting too caught up in a "kids these days" argument that's getting further and further away from our topic of discussion (even though valid points are being made).
I'm still wondering what everyone thinks about writing turning from a private thing into a public thing due to the Internet, and how the role of the writer is changing in the digital age. There are many writers with huge followings on the Internet, and most of them have never published a single printed page. And there are some online writers who have their pieces read by an audience larger than those who buy a typical non-bestseller book.
Should we then, in Intro to Composition classes, teach students how to write a resume? It's a means to an end. They want a job. Or would that be more appropriate in business and tech. writing, or some other kind of liberal arts "preparation for the job market" course?
Furthermore, I too worked through high school and college, and have fully supported myself while doing so since high school. This, however, seems like a political debate on funding for college students.
There is a difference between devaluing students and their goals and valuing the ability of a teacher to teach in a way that has proven successful and is most comfortable to that teacher.
Jamie: In response to your question about teaching students resume writing, I would refer you back to my original posting - where I referenced the kinds of things I want to engage my students, the ways I see my course intersecting with their career-minded goals (I am not advocating anything as simplistic as you suggest I am - not teaching them a discrete skill such as resume writing but higher order thinking skills necessary for good writing).
I have to admit I'm befuddled that you interpreted what I said as "a political debate on funding for college students." I think you've missed the spirit of what I was arguing - which is really not that far removed from what Russell Durst argued earlier.
Pam
You emphasized how hard students work to afford college. This seemed like a different issue, though. Pell Grants were even mentioned. This was presented as a reason why students must be trained for the job market in English classes - to pay off college expenses. My point is in the question: should English classes be restructured to focus on future success in the workplace, because of the high costs of education? Or, rather, are high costs a separate issue, that have a place to be debated, but not result in a fundamental change to the classroom?
Do I want to enter this discussion? I don't know. I will answer Bob's question about being inscure. I think all writers are insecure, most people too. I know I am (for a list see me after class). But as far as the internet and internet writing making me more insecure, that's not it. It is a cultural thing for me. I believe that technology, any kind, internet, digital cameras, cell phone, are great (although I backspaced my whole orginial sentence so you will never know what I was really going to say). But I worry about peoples fixation with them, and utltimately the money it costs of to have them along with the social pressure of owning them.
I did not have a computer until I was 27, that is this semester when I came here. How did I buy it, I charged it on my credit card. My family couldn't afford to buy me one, we couldn't afford to have these things in our house. So where does that leave people who cannont afford things. The pressure, socially is so strong to stay up with technology, and it is buying into more material possessions that in the end own us. We are culture already plaged by owning bigger and better things. This frightens me.
And this is where I see the depression coming from, people suffer financially because of what they are told they need to own. I also see a social depression because people are stuck in their houses on the computer, watching television, on the phone, ect. In other countries, people are outside, lots of people and they are willing to stop and talk to you. I have been hear three months and whenever I see my neighbor he just hangs his head and pretends he is invisible. I said hello to my other the neighbor on saturday and she just turned back around and went into her house. It is like we are a culture with so many secrets that we cannot even talk to each other.
That is what makes me insecure. I don't care what people write on the internet, read on the internet, because in the end I am going to reach for a book at the end of night rather than the glaring of the computer screen.
My romantic ideas about writng are strong, and yes this does influence what I think. I believe in pen and paper and I believe in writing anywhere. Plus pen and paper are lighter. I can haul a pen and paper in my backpack all the way to Kathmandu and write about the people while I am sitting in a coffee shop or restaurant. Although this can be done with a computer, there are more steps, more is dependant, will the battery last, do I really want to carry around this heavy thing all day as I walk in the city. Pen and paper fit my nomadic lifestyle, fit the person I want to be.
BUT NONE OF THIS MATTERS!! The bottom line is we have to use technology in the classroom, right? I could argue all day about how I think it sucks and it is shitty, but that won't change that next semester I will walk into a computer lab and be expected to teach those kids something.
What???!!
SO I PURPOSE LETS STOP ARGUING AND HELP EACH OTHER OUT!! Bob you apparently have good ideas on how to incorroprate technology so what are they, specifically. I need some direction, what are we talking about when we talk about technology in the classroom, blogging, internet, research, chatrooms, help me out.
I am not opposed to learning anything, for god's sake I learned how to do an entire radio program on computer software, taping, editing, ect, by just sitting down and doing it and watching. So it isn't the learning of the thing that scares me. It is how to use it creatively to serve a real purpsoe that I have a problem with. I need pointers, directions. Concrete examples.
Writers have a saying, "Show don't tell."
Show me examples for what I can do. I say let's build a community right now, dispite our differences. Because I know I don't want to go into the classroom and look like an ass. But honestly, because I don't use the computer as a source of composition, I don't know where to start.
Alright so we disagree! What can we learn from each other and how can we be productive.
SOMEBODY HELP!!
"I'm still wondering what everyone thinks about writing turning from a private thing into a public thing due to the Internet, and how the role of the writer is changing in the digital age. There are many writers with huge followings on the Internet, and most of them have never published a single printed page. And there are some online writers who have their pieces read by an audience larger than those who buy a typical non-bestseller book."
Yeah, sorry I'm realizing I failed to respond to your original questions.
I think you've got a great point--publishing work in general (on the Internet, in a zine, etc) can make written work seem more meaningful. There's no denying that. Some critic we read, was it Mem Fox?, argued this.
But let me share some hot gossip with you from my mentoring meeting yesterday. As I posted on here earlier, my class' online discussion board is full of hollow responses. I brought this issue to my mentor, Gerry Winter, Assistant Director of the Writing Program, and she gave me some input. We scrolled through the site together, read student responses and read and reread my prompts. Ultimately she agreed with me and posed two suggestions: 1) Adjust the settings on the Google Group so it is private. As in: not just anybody can read it. 2) Narrow the focus of my prompts and clarify my instructions/reasons for the discussion group.
It's the first one that surprised me. Gerry thinks that, especially for younger writers, the prospect of having their written work out there on the Internet can be frightening. So they play it safe and don't take many risks in their responses.
It's something I hadn't thought about. While getting published is a great feeling for many of us (older writers, people who actually define ourselves as writers), our students may not want to be so vulnerable. After all, there are literally millions of people on the Internet every day, as you said.
Perhaps closing the discussion board to just the class isn't a bad idea, for now. Getting them comfortable with each other (and with their own writing skills) should happen before we open the gates to any form of publishing.
This is slightly tangential, but I'm including it because it's one of my favorite quotes. When asked if she thought the university was stifling writers, Flannery O'Connor replied: "My opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them." Heh. Obviously as a teacher, I don't agree with her. But it does get me thinking.
Laurin -
I wanted to respond to one of your points even though you think it's irrelevant, because I don't want it to just sit there.
Relatively, computers are not expensive. If you know where to look, you can get a new computer that performs your basic college functions for under $500, and even as low as $300. This is a lot of money for some people (it's a lot of money for me), but it's a drop in the bucket compared to tuition and book costs. Yes, it's just "one more thing," but, like it or not, computers are a necessity. I think some of your negativity towards technology is coming from a dated view. As early as the late 90s, your average new computer cost around $1500 - $2000. This is why I never had a computer in my house until I was 14.
“The pressure, socially is so strong to stay up with technology, and it is buying into more material possessions that in the end own us. We are culture already plaged by owning bigger and better things. This frightens me.”
But the thing is, this has arguably been going on since the beginning of time. I think it’s safe to say that materialism has been at its worst starting in the second half of the last century, but there’s no reason to pinpoint today as the culmination of human greed. Your fear has been a historical one. Ever hear of “the me generation?”
As far as ideas for using computers in productive ways, the book we are reading is full of great ideas, and Pamela gave me an article on blogs that I think everyone should read (mainly because our book doesn't mention them).
Mel –
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with making a class blog private to the class only. But if it’s public, there’s a very slim chance that someone is going to find it and an even slimmer chance that they are going to care. Our blog is public to view, and I linked a few of my friends to it so they could check out this discussion we’ve been having. Hope that doesn’t make anyone nervous.
In order to make these things productive, we need students to take them seriously – casual though they may be. How we get them to do this is another question. My naïve hope is that through the bits of blogging they do in class, my students will at least express some interest in “digital authorship” by the end. It’s can be immensely fulfilling once you get past the initial shock of being thrown into such a big pool.
Okay I am getting a little fustrated. I have asked several times for concrete examples of how to use technology in the classroom to better advance the creativity, and everyone keeps saying, read this, read that. In the several articles I read so far (as I have not read the assignments for tomorrow yet) I have only read about analyzation of the uses. There hasn't been real concrete discussion on what to use and how to use it. What are we talking about here. Blogs, chatrooms, ect? Why can't anyone just help me out and give me a list.
And to comment on what Bob was saying about the realative inexpenisness of computers. Okay, flat out what if you just don't want one. Why do you have to be plugged in to be an academic? Technology forces you into things. And that is what is troublesome. What if I want to spend my $300-500 dollars some other way. It just seems that as it becomes more of "necessity" it becomes more of a burden. It is like well you have to have this to be a success. Why? It becomes something that I feel I dictates the quality of life. What if I just didn't want a computer? I really didn't want one, but I knew in order to make my life easier I would have to get one, along with the internet, more money. But it brings more burdens, when I would rather be out seeing the world.
As a member of academe, your role is to be a creator and receiver of information. The computer facilitates this. That's about as simple as I can make it.
And if you don't want to buy a computer, you don't have to. The campus offers plenty of computer labs to work in, and even an office with your own personal computer if you receive an assistantship.
What if you want to spend your money in some other way? "Don't go to college" is a simple enough answer. Without using a computer, you are not going to be a productive scholar -- and the only thing you are being "burdened" with is the access to untold amounts of information that was previously unavailable. You can choose to ignore this information, but your work will suffer.
And, unless you're a Sherpa, the Internet isn't "taking you away" from anything -- except maybe a library, which is also indoors. If you choose to write a normal letter instead of an e-mail, do you do it outside against the bark of a tree so you can experience nature?
With computers, you're accomplishing more "inside activities" faster so you have the opportunity to do other things.
At this point I say who cares. Yes, I write outside, I write everywhere, and maybe I want to be a Sherpa. Maybe I want to use my scholarship and education so I can go back to Tibet and live a simpler life, sit on a mountain with my notebook and write. That is what I want. I seriously do, nor will I ever believe that having a computer and being plugged in means that I will not be a "productive scholar" really. We could argue all day what productive means. Maybe don't want to be a Sherpa. That's okay. I still like you. No need to take it personal, like because I don't like technology in the classroom
But that doesn't matter. What I am starting to wonder is why all the people who are so pro-technology cannot explain to me concretely what the things are that they are using, what is a blackboard, a chat room, seriously this is the first time I have ever blogged. As I explained to Pam in her post, the internet is a necessary evil for me and only use it because I am in a society that tells me I need to.
I am reading about these things, blackboards, vista, chatrooms, ect. Who can explain these things to me and tell me how I can use them.
Seriously we have differences, so what. I sincerely want to learn and understand what the techies are doing that is so great for the classroom, so I can use it to. I agree to disagree. But I am starting to doubt if there are effective technologies because no one can tell me what they are. What are these things that are so great, and why are you holding them hostage over me because you are mad that I don't agree with you. Help me, convert me. I am willing to learn.
"But I am starting to doubt if there are effective technologies because no one can tell me what they are. What are these things that are so great, and why are you holding them hostage over me because you are mad that I don't agree with you."
Guh? Your presumption isn't true. I rant and rave about the virtues of blogging until I'm blue in the face. I even mentioned an article on blogging that the whole class can read. I don't appreciate your passive-aggressive comment, either. I wouldn't write so much if I wasn't trying to be helpful. You've also abandoned the arguments that I disagree with, so why should I be mad?
The articles we are reading mention specific technologies and show examples of how teachers are using them in the classroom. You even gave examples of technologies yourself. A class discussion on this is going to be valuable, but I'm not sure why you seem to be at a loss for information.
Oy… I hate being the last to post!
I’ve been reading all the comments since yesterday, and every time I go to post a there is something new to read and respond to. You guys are too quick for me! :) I think I’ve written about four responses, each of which was irrelevant by the time I finished it. Curse my late-night blogging! And it seems there’s even a term for my plight: I’m chatting with one of my more blog-savvy friends at the moment (look at me multi-task!), who just informed me that someone beating you to a post is commonly referred to as getting “ninja-ed”?! That’s so bizarre. Do people actually use this term? Although, I’m seriously beginning to wonder if he just made that up. And, no, this has nothing to do with our larger discussion—but it made me laugh.
Anyway, I think we have wandered into a rather provoking discussion this week, and I’ve enjoyed learning more about everyone’s perspectives. I was, however, beginning to think we were dividing into camps or something!
Well, I’ve just decided to add a few thoughts about some of the final comments.
Laurin, I was reading one of your last comments about being frustrated and wanting specifics examples of ways that technology could advance creativity. As I was thinking about it, I found that particularly hard to identify, since “creativity” is such a varied, ephemeral concept. I can, however, think of ways technology—particularly computers and the Internet—can facilitate inspiration, knowledge, scholarship, and, thus, writing—which is the fundamental goal of composition classes.
The Internet connects us to people, ideas, and information outside of the limitations of our immediate resources and locations. In many ways, this makes the Internet an equalizer. I think that is one of the reasons why it is important to teach students how to utilize what’s available to them. As we’ve discussed in class, most incoming freshmen are avid technology users. So, integrating computer/Internet elements fits the audience and the age. A Comp 101 course may not be the place where students design a website or draft a resume, but I think it is important that students recognize how their writing translates to different mediums and venues, and how they can become more aware—and more responsive—students and citizens.
Academic research was the first example that came to mind. The online library resources continue to amaze me! I mean, how awesome is WorldCat or even the online catalog?! Not only does the Internet make library research easier, but it also gives us access to information we wouldn’t have—or wouldn’t know how to get—otherwise. As I mentioned before, it is a great equalizer. Knowledge becomes more democratic. We don’t have to be enrolled at Oberlin or Case Western to get a book from their library. Thanks to databases and OhioLINK, our resources are not as limited. We are not as limited. Some people might think that being able to reserve a book or skim an article while sitting at home, in front of my computer, is lazy, passive, or leads to skill loss—and maybe it does, on some level. But it’s not math--if all the computers in the world suddenly imploded, I could still figure out how to thumb through a card catalog. I’d also argue that systems like these free up time for all those face-to-face activities we’ve been talking about.
I think the wealth of information on media, entertainment, politics, advertising, and art are great themes or topics to inspire discussions, opinions, and writing. Example: I think we all know how tainted, biased, and Hollywood-obsessed mainstream newspapers and news shows are. So, I typically check out the BBC news online—it’s a great source for global events, especially if you want to hear about something other than Britney Spears’s frappuccino runs or Jennifer Lopez’s baby bulge. As we’ve discovered this week, computers themselves are interesting topics for debate! And anything you can debate, discuss, and investigate are powerful topics to write about—which is also evident in this blog!
I’m not an expert. My computer skills (such that they are), do have a limit. So, I feel that anxiety as well. I may love my computer, but I don’t know how to build it, fix it, or talk about it with my computer science-y friends. I don’t use MySpace or Facebook, but enjoy some online gaming. WebCT infuriates me, and—confession—I hate blogging. I have, however, learned the value of blogging, and how it can be a valuable addition to college course. I think it’s great that Comp students can articulate their thoughts and interact with other students through writing. Still as we’ve all said, there should be a balance between technology and more traditional forms of course work. In-class discussions can meet the need for direct, verbal communication, and maybe a few paper journals for more sensitive or personal issues.
At the end of the day, I’m glad I can log into WebCT, check a few due dates, and replace the syllabus my cat just ate. Of course, I don’t want to overwhelm myself as an instructor—I’d like to have some familiarity with the resources I’m asking the students to use. I wouldn’t have a clue about setting up a WebCT/Vista course—if I absolutely had to use it, I would probably try to find a workshop or something. Blogs, like this one, seem easy enough to set up.
The Internet has this strange, paradoxical quality of both exposing and isolating us. Personally, I still feel that computers/Internet facilitate and expedite communication. But, Laurin, I totally sympathize with some of your uncertainties. I’m trying to overcome my own computer insecurities and think of ways to knowledgeably use in-class technology. I guess I won’t claim to be an expert—didn’t one of our readings mention involving the students’ knowledge?
So, this is a really long post! I probably haven’t addressed many of our current issues, but these were just a few of my thoughts after reading this evening’s comments.
I would first like to say that I think we should be more respectful of each others' opinions. Period.
Next, the creative writers should not be lumped together, nor should the lit students, or any other group, in this pedagogical discussion. We do not agree on everything, and that's great. Shouldn't we be encouraging that to our own students?
This is my stance on using technology in/outside the classroom (and I think because I'm a creative writer, it's been assumed that I want everyone to sit under trees and draw their words in the dirt): I am not against technology. I have an i-pod, I check my email several times per day, and I, too, sit in public places and answer text messages. I think to be completely separated from that part of our community would be alienating, which is actually the opposite of some of the claims in class. I know people who don't have computers, cell phones, etc. and, though they lead perfectly happy lives, they are separated from most of society. I agree that there is more writing going on now because of computers and the internet, and I think that's great. However, I don't think all of the writing we do and have our students do should be done on the internet, at least not for the class we are going to be teaching, not that I am implying that is what anyone has said. When our group (Jamie, Mel, Laurin, and myself) had our private discussion, some of the things we focused on were not emphasized in the overall class discussion, and so I think it may have seemed as though we don't want to use technology at all. One of the things I think we all agreed on is that we want to find ways to use technology that will suppliment what we already do (or plan to do). Personally, I would like to get my students thinking in as many different ways as possible, and I think this can be done by doing many different kinds of activities with them. I like the idea of online discussion boards outside of class, along with blogging and other means of communication, but I don't necessarily think I want to throw out the paper notebook. I think by combining the things we like from old practices and the things we like from the new we can come up with something really productive. For example, I might have students read an article online in class if computers are readily available, and then have them respond in their personal, handwritten notebook. Then they could break into groups and discuss what they wrote. Then we could have a larger group discussion, in which I encourage students to raise the issues they came up with in their smaller discussions. Then they could go home and reflect their thoughts on the online discussion board, and maybe one of those issues could develop into something for a paper they will write in the future. Basically, I think that there are aspects of technology that are great for certain things, and as Ashley pointed out, it's a matter of finding out what will work for different purposes. I don't necessarily want students to handwrite everything, but I do like notebooks, and want to keep them. I agree with Pam, though, that often times the brilliant things students write in their journals never see the light of day. That's where discussions and technology do come in. We can have the best of both worlds, it's not impossible.
I do think we should respect each other's opinions even if we disagree with them. We should at least respect them enough to represent them correctly -- nothing is more aggrivating than a straw man defense.
And, for the record, in the classroom I would like a balance of using analogue and didgtal tools for writing. I don't wat to lean more heavily towards one extreme or the other.
Post a Comment