Wednesday August 27, 2008 CRD 704 - Reading 2
Class assignment:==============================================================
Computers in the Composition Classroom:
- Chapter 1 (CCCC Position Statement)
- Chapter 2 (Ohmann)
- Chapter 3 (Hawisher and Selfe)
- Hrastinski & Keller, 2007
THOUGHTS AND QUESTIONS
-- Ohmann --
I was surprised by a statement in Ohmann which made me look to see the year in which the article was written (1985 - 23 years ago) and, again, I was surprised to learn that, even at such an early date, before the boom of personal computers, the classroom was becoming a site of mediation.
"Engineers are shaping computers now so that those who work at them will be only keyboard operators." (p28) That is, of course, also true of engineers themselves.
As computer technology is an area which has been funded, in part, by business, the author notes that liberatory classrooms are "the first area of public education to be so stimulated and directed by business." I think I understood that on a basic level when, at my undergrad university, I would see Macs in the graphics departments, Sun and Solaris in Computer Science, mathematics and engineering, and PCs in business, the humanities, and other "softer" sciences.
And yes, the elite have benefited. Who is the elite? I think academia likes to think of itself as a defender of the non-elite but I sort of wonder if that is true. Aren't we also elite -- this goes back to my new understanding that the article was written in 1985 and the classroom had computers long before Joan Q. Public. Isn't that a bit of the elite? Are we not, as an American institution, technologically better off than other universities?
What has really changed? It seems, from my industry background, that the Academy is still behind the 8-ball when it comes to technology. NCSU has blogs, wikis and forums and computers in the classroom or required laptops. But IBM has teleconferencing #s, an international network connectivity program (modem or ethernet), video conferencing, and messaging and a presence in second life.
-- Hawisher --
The idea that architecture of learning spaces affects how people learn is quite interesting as I had many Computer Science classes in the Computing Center of my alma mater which was a old chapel. The rooms were walled with windows, so one could see in where an instructor talked at the front and all the students, facing the instructor, sat in what felt like pews. Voices echoed. It produced both comfort and insecurity.
The authors note that researchers forget to mention the downsides to technology. I'm not pro-technology supporter -- it has its benefits and its disadvantages. I take issue with anyone who takes a PROtechnology or CONtechnology stance as it doesn't account for the other side.
Take the hammer for instance -- great for inserting tapered nails into soft materials like wood but not so great for blunt end screws in metal. Do we sit around and criticize it for not being good enough? Why not?
Posted by hkvonlud ( Aug 27 2008, 08:40:30 AM EDT ) Permalink Comments [1]
Trackback URL: http://blogs.lib.ncsu.edu/HereTakeMyAdvice/entry/crd_704_reading_2
Post a Comment:
Heidi, I really like your examples and how you bring up both the architecture of learning spaces and the different uses for different computers. It's interesting how in a physical building like a classroom, you, for the most part, are confined to a space for a given period of time. Online, you never really exist in only one space at one time - you're spanning multiple spaces through Facebook, IM, email, etc. and I wonder if that's why so many people criticize the community potential of the web - because you can never really center yourself in one place. Your comments about the multiple computers are also good and I REALLY like your hammer example - use the technology for what it should be used for, perhaps not for what you want it to be used for?
Posted by Christin on August 27, 2008 at 12:17 PM EDT #