Computers: Friend or Foe to Learning and Reading?

The past defines the future; writing defines the future. Writing is a technology that, though not necessarily a new invention, is a technology that shapes the way people learn, communicate, think, and behave. Without writing, the world would never have experienced that great advancement that came with the development of computers. Through computers and the creation of the internet, writing can be shared and read by millions of people, beyond what most books have been able to accomplish. Writing also made online classes possible, bringing accessible knowledge to students and making education a reality for working adults who otherwise would not have been able to attend school. While computers are seen as a threat to literacy, one must admit that writing skills can be both practiced and perfected on a computer. At the same time, the internet is also the location where improper English is glorified and inaccurate information is accessed by millions every day. Depending on the way computers are used, writing as a technology continues to press forward as more people “embrace what’s new” in mainstream society (Baron, 82).

Writing did not always shape the way the world worked. In fact, according to Baron, writing was not initially founded until 3,500 B.C. The initial purpose of writing was to keep records of transactions, accounts, and sales (74). As time pressed forward, writing became a form of literacy, one that presented information and ideas to a new audience. Oral communication and cultures became obsolete, and writing became the invention that could effectively “pin-down” information and histories (Ong, 20). From this point on, knowledge could be formally passed down through text, giving the “written world possession of our consciousness” (Ong, 20). Spoken word is unable to carry with it the amount of information, context, and knowledge that writing has the ability to. Without writing, Ong argues that “cultures will be back on square one,” without gaining any knowledge and truths that come through the “pinned-down” text.

Writing, though imperative to society today, was not fully accepted by all cultures, just as computers are sometimes rejected by older individuals. Those that created writing can be compared to the computer geeks of today, making millions wonder where their ideas came from. Today, computers seem to be a threat to literacy due to the informal and improper language used on it. One cannot argue against the fact that millions use a computer lingo, often integrating it into academic works where it does not belong. Education proponents often argue that computers are the reason why students struggle with reading and writing. With the internet readily available to them, books no longer can contain the attention of a youth or teenager. In the NY Times article “Literacy Debate: Online, R U Really Reading,” critic of reading on the internet argue that people are unable to sustain the “focused, linear attention developed by reading” (4). Reading on a computer does not have a beginning, middle, or end that presents a main, thought out point. However, college students and many academics can argue that computers have taken reading and writing to places that it was never thought possible.

Online classes are the new innovations that were created as the internet began to take hold of the academic population. As a student who has taken five online courses, I have experienced both the advantages and the disadvantages of “sitting” in an online classroom. As resources move from print to digital form, professors are able to obtain and assign new works of literature, history, and articles that otherwise would only have been able to be read if the book was bought. These new digital prints making the learning process exciting, giving students the opportunity to learn from resources other than books. Furthermore, online classes force students to communicate their ideas through formal writing, replacing discussions that would have taken place in person. As this class has proven, writing skills grow when they are practiced. These classes also force students to write in a “high language,” one that is read and evaluated by both their peers and professor. Discussions in this form gives shy or quiet students the opportunity to express their ideas, beliefs, and understandings, without actually speaking in front of a group of people.

The disadvantage of an online class comes in the same form that blogging on the internet brings or reading someone’s online article, the problem of interpretation and understanding arises. For example, I took a Geology course online and while I have a knack for history, science never fails to confuse me. After reading the “lectures” I was often quite confused and was forced to look up information on the subject on my own. I never actually learned some of the topics covered, but rather, I mimicked the knowledge and wrote in such a way that made me look like I knew what I was talking about. In the same sense, anybody can post something on the internet. Determining what is credible and inaccurate often brings false knowledge to individuals who think they are learning something. Until all people can understand how to determine whether a website is credible or not, the internet and computer will bring great downfalls to literacy.

Ok, I had quite a bit of trouble bringing in all the Ong, Baron, and the NY Times article. Do you have any suggestions as to how I can integrate them into a thesis or how I can make this paper more focused? I think what I want to prove is that writing is a creation meant to better society and computers are an invention that can bring writing skills forward as long as they are used properly. Thanks!

Kosut and Delpit Reflection

Class and culture seem to be the strongest forces that keep students from entering the secondary discourse of academia. Kosult, in her essay, proves that those students coming from blue-collar families do not have the cultural knowledge and opportunities that higher class students have had. This, in turn, keeps them out of the larger academic community because language, experience, and overall knowledge differs between these two groups. In the same respect, Deplit argues that minorities are often rejected from the academic community because it is “harder” (per say) to transition into the mainstream discourse. The overall problem of education seems to be that educators often do not understand that all students come from different places, have different backgrounds, and cultural values. These often play a role in how children learn and what they understand and are essentially overlooked by the curriculum in many schools.
When looking back on my own education, I realized that I never learned anything about minorities’ histories, cultures, or religions. I received little, if any, non western history education about the Middle East, Africa, Mexico, etc. This is an extreme flaw in the education system. In order to bring students of all cultures in, it is a necessity to have lesson plans that can be related to the students. In addition, I think it would be easier for white students to accept minority students into their mainstream discourse if they, too, had an understanding of where they are coming from. It is extremely problematic for students to not have an overall knowledge of the world when they enter college, especially because college is much more diverse than a lot of high schools.

One thing that somewhat bothered me about Deplit’s essay is that she seemed to blame the teachers for giving up on minority students. While I do agree that this occurs, I think that this must also be related to the idea of teacher burn out and them having a feeling of failure. My mom has been an MPS teacher for almost thirty years and I have watched her become extremely disappointed in her job. All she wanted to do was teach students music, something that she loved with all her heart. Instead, everyday seemed to be a challenge for her just to get her lessons taught to her students. They not only did not give her the respect she deserved, but they cared little about classroom rules and anything that was taught there. My mom always tried to teach music to her students that could be related to them, yet still accomplished little. I think this is why teachers give up on their students. Teacher, generally, are not racist people who feel that all of their minority students are meant to fail. In fact, I think that some teachers are more willing to work with students who more “at risk” than others. Teachers should not be the first blamed for students not entering the secondary discourse of academia. I think all factors need to be looked at including the school system, curriculum, and home life. Until all aspects are understood as to how they work together, schools will be unable to bring in all students, no matter what background they come from.

Rodriguez’s chapter “The Achievement to Desire” is basically a reflection of his past through a critical standpoint. Rodriguez was able to make his essay extremely able to be related to, and ultimately forced me to look at my past education history through critical eyes. Basically, Rodriguez is trying to show just how much he moved away from his primary discourse. He learned the English language and rarely spoke Spanish, he did not follow the cultural norms of a Hispanic family (the close-knit family), and he expressed the embarrassment that he had for his parents because they were not educated like his teachers, the people he looked up to. Education successfully moved Rodriguez away from his primary discourse into new secondary ones, those that required much reading and studying. These secondary discourses seemed to teach him that imitation was the key to a successful life (mushfaking). In his primary education, Rodriguez realized that he really had not achieved anything because his thinking skills had never grown from the point of looking past “what the book says.” In short, Rodriguez was saying that “primary education is imitation” (448).

In order to receive what Gee called meta-knowledge, one must keep in touch with his primary discourse and those values, beliefs, and culture that were taught at a young age while somewhat challenging them with what is learned in school. In Rodriguez’s case, his parents almost seemed to want him to give up his culture (and Discourse) in order to become a better individual, one that is educated. However, while trying to move into his secondary discourse, Rodriguez feels as though he is alone, he only hears silence in his new world filled with reading, studying, and learning. The complex relationship and loss of ties that Rodriguez experiences with his parents shows just how hard it is to grow up and expand out from the primary discourse to new secondary ones. As Rodriguez proved, after the secondary discourse is fully achieved, one reflects back on their past with a sense of longing, mainly because that primary discourse was much easier to fit into than those new ones trying to be taken on.

Gee Reflective Blog

When thinking about Gee’s interpretation of Primary and Secondary Discourses, I continued to picture a child growing up with their family while leaning their specific values, beliefs, languages, etc. Then, this child begins school and becoming involved in other activities where they will learn new ideas, cultures, ways of speaking, and new ways of thinking. The movement from a primary discourse to a secondary one can be extremely difficult for some to acquire, especially because the child will have to conform his social practices to fit in with those he is around.

After reading Dr. Unterweger’s blog about Gee, I pictured myself fitting into my chosen field of teaching history at the middle/high school level. From the get go, I always knew I was going to be a teacher because my mom was one. Through hearing the many discussions about teaching between her n the rest of my family, I came to realize that I wanted to do that same job as her (learned through primary discourse.) However, I think it is important to add that she always stressed (even to this day) not to work for MPS so her disbelief in the school system has rubbed off on me.

Here at UWM, students are taught many education methods including how to have classroom control, what to teach and how to teach it, child psychology (understanding how a child learns), and everything else necessary to work in the education field. Upon my fifth year of school, I will finally have the chance to do my student teaching where I will be able to take on the role of being a teacher. This will be my first hands on experience of physically teaching students lesson plans that I created myself. Furthermore, I will use the teacher that I am working with as a model of how he/she creates new lesson plans uses classroom control, and he/she creates a comfortable classroom environment for the students. After graduating from college, I will have learned how to run a disciplined, successful classroom and once I find a job working in a school to truly take on the discourse, I will have to conform the way I dress, behave, talk, and carry myself in a manner that students will respect. The meta-knowledge that I learned in college will play a huge role in how am able to teach my future students. However, first-hand experience and observation (acquisition) will also play a role in how I teach. By being emerged in the school setting and seeing how other teachers behave and run their own classrooms, I will learn how to run my own classroom in order to both fit in and be successful.

Bartholomae & Haas

“Authors create texts and readers read texts in a complex of social relationships, motivated by goals sanctioned (or not) by the surrounding culture, to achieve purposes that are always in the broadest sense persuasive.” (358)

In this (somewhat) simple quote, Haas is basically describing the complex relationship that exists between an author and their reader. The author has motives within his writing that he wants to get across the readers. The reader also has his own motives when reading the text and has the job to challenge the author’s goals or believe, or even add to them. Through this “conversation” ideas are being expelled from the author to the reader.

Bartholomae adds to Haas’ text by stating, “A writers idea’s or his motives must be tailored to the needs and expectations of his audience. A writer has to “build bridges” between his point of view and his readers. He has to anticipate and acknowledge his reader’s assumptions and biases” (515).

In order to have a “two sided” conversation, Bartholomae is stating here that it is imperative to realize that the audience will have their own ideas on the subject before reading the text. Culture shapes that way people think and Bartholomae knows that persuasion can only occur if both sides are brought out in the conversation. The author must understand who they are talking to and who they are trying to persuade. The author must enter the “conversation” with the reader prepared to acknowledge what they know. By showing both sides to every situation, the author is not only having a social relationship with the culture, but is also creating a relationship with reader, acknowledging the fact that their ideas do matter. Without showing both sides, authority is certainly lost and the conversation begins to fade.

Bartholomae & Creativity Impromptu Reflective

The creativity impromptu came very challenging to me because I never pictured myself as a creative individual. When trying to describe the idea of creativity, I immediately thought of art class in elementary school. The problem with this was that I only thought of creativity when it came to art. I never even considered music, writing, or any other aspect of life as fitting into the idea of creativity. In this sense, I feel as though I was not thinking “out of the box,” and was not creative in my realm of thinking.

After reading Bartholomae’s essay, I realized that my essay followed the same pattern as the song writer’s essay. I noticed that throughout her essay, she changed her definition of creativity, realizing that she was not necessarily being creative because she was imitating music she had heard on the radio. However, by not purposely copying them, she was using them as inspiration while creating her own music. In my essay, I made the point that I had been creative because I made the only bumble bee in my fourth grade class. However, after thinking about this, I realized that all the students were being creative because they were making something of their own. At first, I thought creativity was something that had to be completely different from anything anyone has done. Then, I realized that I was wrong. Creativity is something that everyone possesses, something that is done by anyone who has an idea and creates it (in my essay it was a paper mache animal.)

I think that Bartholomae may have been pretty hard on my essay. After reading the advanced essay, I realized that the vocabulary I used was not advanced. I may not have had many grammatical errors, but the content was not at a high level. Furthermore, in my final statement “[creativity] will produce imaginative works of art that most people could not have even dreamed of” I created a commonplace, assuming that everyone sees creativity in art.

When writing my creativity impromptu essay, I knew that I was writing for an English professor and for my peers. With this in mind, I tried to describe creativity (at first) as a child would, and then “grow up” and describe creativity in its true sense so that the reader will see where I started from and where I was going to end. Realizing that creativity was just doing something different made me reconsider my thoughts about my “creative bumble bee.”

Bartholomae made some great points about writing but I’m still curious about his idea of grammar. Is it not true that most professors care just as much about grammar as they do about content? If a student writes with authority, but cannot spell or punctuate, doesn’t the professor lose some respect for the author? If grammar is forgotten about it the classroom won’t a lot of students have problems learning how to write without errors further down the road?