Here, take my advice -- I'm not using it!
Blog defies description

Krause's CV

Change is always slow. The current tenured, experienced professors think "the old way" works well enough and probably don't understand technology enough to grasp, and the changes involved with, how it could be use towards advancing Scholarship let alone the tenure process.

In Steven D. Krause's online article, "Where Do I List This on My CV? Considering the Values of Self-Published Web Sites" he writes:

"But increasingly, the only significant difference between online journals and their more traditional counterparts is the medium. Online publications often adopt traditional standards regarding peer review and editorial policies, and the articles they are publishing (while often hypertextual) are static in the sense that writers are typically not going back to make changes or include comments from readers."

Of course, I sort of wonder about the tenure process in the first place. From what I understand, tenure was created to protect professors from firing when they researched and published controversial and provocative issues. BUT publications won't publish these things - they want to publish the same old "standard" research, which fortifies the historical knowledge base again and again. There's almost no way for professors to publish provocative, fly-in-the-face-of-tradition research. I wonder if Foucault would have a chance of publishing these days. So why should professors get can't-be-fired tenure when there's no way to publish controversial research? Is it so they can do the research without having to publish? But then no one knows about their research - except if they publish it online.

Krause continues "Web writers/publishers can quite literally skip much of the "fuss" of academic publishing (as Lanham put it), skipping much of the traditional, so-called "gate-keeping" apparatus to reach readers quickly and directly. Their texts can be easily corrected, updated, and changed, and authors can literally enter into a dialogue with readers and other writers who offer suggestions and comments."

Eggsactly. If academia were really democratic, it would open review to both academics and the public, perhaps through using different "accounts" or functions to do so, but offering itself openly to the public would break down the "othering" barriers academia points out and takes issue with elsewhere  (ie. North vs South (America), rich vs poor, academia vs. public).

In the examples he gives, they aren't "works", articles. They are reproductions or resource sites albeit those with research and consideration. As a person from industry, I'm not sure how to define "Scholarship".

What would happen if there were an organization that began redefining scholarship - an organization with members from universities etc all over the US, the world, etc that defined this new area, like a think-tank for considering S/scholarship? Part of the conversation could be about expectations for online persistence (to avoid "missing" articles and work!) Sometimes I think these conversations would be better served by coming together for a larger discussion (The Modern Language Association was an attempt but the context isn't large enough). In other words, works like Krause's don't make a dent by themselves but taken together they can make more of an impact. I think the lack of organization in academia is one of it's largest problems. We talked earlier about the CCCC statement on pedagogy and technology. It didn't make a dent --- perhaps because it's a one-off organization trying to make a difference. Get a mob together; they are harder to write off.


Posted by hkvonlud ( Nov 01 2008, 10:22:04 AM EDT ) Permalink Comments [1]

CRD 704 - Reading 10

Pace wrote


which led me to think about what other sorts of software blur the line from "just a tool" to software having a sense of "agency" that force a particular path of interpretation or representation. Of course MSWord is one such program, as are integrated development environments through what languages they allow you to usev ia the languages that they "support". If an integrated development environment (IDE), software used for developing and testing software programs, doesn't support HTML (for instance) then it might mean that developers won't use HTML which could lead to a variety of other design decisions that effect the end user. In this way, those choices could become embedded in the software's design. That's still not a 100% example of agency, like the author points out, but compilers used by the IDE do interpret the code - sometimes in unintended ways.

At the same time, Pace points out that

Even though Pace's article is about "computer-as-co-author", and some of the issues involved with using VRT software, I think that CMOC can have a valuable influence on the thought-speech paradigm in terms of preparing students for the professional world. Just reading Chandra's conversational-style transcript was painful with its multiple incomplete thoughts. Yet it seems like this is how the current generation communicates -- un-consecutive 15-20 word blurbs (texts, blogs, twitter).


Wouldn't CMOC be a useful exercise for a public speaking class? -- I wrote that before reading Comstock and Hock's piece on sonic literacy. I could see where having to use it to "write" a paper, or to compose a voice-over narrative in Comstock and Hocks' examples, would help students understand 1) how they really sound when they speak 2) the thought required to speak clearly, with clarity, rhetorically, etc. What is particularly interesting is that, at work,  I often feel I have to speak the way I have been taught to write: clearly, logically, concisely. I often find myself consciously trying to limit an oral explanation to 2-3 sentences. It's like I write it in my head before I say them, and I speak more slowly to allow that time to think.

 In Pace, Chandra' said that learning to use the software helped her with style:

And I think that sonic literacy is an interesting concept... because my initial reaction was like "what?" but after thinking about it, I realised we have a sonic rhetoric that is transformed by digital media.
Posted by hkvonlud ( Oct 26 2008, 03:32:20 PM EDT ) Permalink Comments [1]

CRD 704 - Reading 9

There's a lot to think about this week because I've been meaning to try to wrap my head around patents and copyright from the industry perspective.
I feel like I have more research to do to fully comment on how this week's topic applies to industry. It's very a very complicated and broad topic.

What I'm really curious about is how copyright, citing, and management of ideas will change as we (the West) becomes even more of a Knowledge and Creative Economy.

Industry focuses on patents - ideas that are in a -- for lack of a better word - consumable form; they are ideas that have some "concretizing" or "attempted concretizing" perspective as opposed to a theory-intellectual idea which can simply be (wave of hands) a communicated idea; a meme, out in the ether. Hrm now I'm even not sure what I'm thinking because theory-intellectual ideas can be concretizable if/when they "come into being, or are considered 'truth'". But anyway, let's just suppose that patents are "concretized, implementable" and other ideas are theory-intellectual that are simply communicated and may not be implementable.

What happens to patents and theory-intellectual ideas as our economy focuses more on creative knowledge building -- and industry in particular begins to see the need that academics have been investigating for many years already -- which is the need to protect theory-intellectual ideas?

It seems like the current policies of copyright and patenting will not continue to hold in this case particularly for industry. (Hrm I smell an idea for our incubator technology program!)

-- I might write more later --
Posted by hkvonlud ( Oct 23 2008, 09:57:12 AM EDT ) Permalink Comments [0]

LOFI on the web -- CRD 704 - Reading 8

The main theme in the readings is the use of free/open-source technologies for learning.

Nothing surprised me in the Reilly and Williams article. It was a study about the extent to which educational institutions use open source software and why. Similar things happen at IBM: the team I work on needs to consider what sort of webserver we'll use to serve content -- Apache (free) or WebSphere (our own, too much functionality and too hard to use -meant for the 'enterprise'). Unfortunately, even open source software can wind up being commercialized. Or because of the search of the next big thing open source can wind up morphing into something entirely different or "go away" completely. Perhaps this connects with Stolley's focus on content producers using basic text and graphics so students would be able to access classroom materials and participate more in discourse (assuming they are technologically saavy enough) without the need for CMT.

Stolley's basic argument seems to be that "the need to use specific software and hardware creates an online environment that favors the producer while preventing real, dynamic discourse by the user". He writes, we need to "create free and open source artifacts that are software- and device-independent" and mentions specifically, in the section of defining technologies, that we should use or retrograde to "Plain text files (.txt, .xml, .htm, .css, .js, etc.)". He calls for an emphasis on the source in "free and open source" and Lanham-esquely wants to ensure users that "source code and media elements are available for inspection, revision, and extension outside the scope of any one piece of production software and any one producer".

What does he suggest happens to or replaces blogs and forums for a second - technologies which at least attempt to create discourse using technologies?  It's unclear what Stolley thinks about these which are not "expensive" but do not adhere to his L.O.F.I principles as they are not just text and notepad.  Is he suggesting that blogs or forums downgrade to text files editable in notepad which users somehow upload online? Also unclear to me is how using a cludgey, wonky FTP interface to upload notepad files is "forgiving" to the user.

Lunsford concern is delivery. It will be very interesting to see how changes in technoliteracy, and maybe the ease-to-create multimedia discourse, will change an organization like IBM. There is still a very "old school" mentality about communication and I wonder if it is because its a science (logic based) and business (results based, efficiency based, relationship based) in one. I think upcoming generations will (of course) change this but I'm curious about how technology will change to be able to accomodate these new forms of communication to provide communication, logic, relationships within the business context.
=====================================================================

PDF in Blackboard Vista:

    * Reilly & Williams, 2006
    * Lunsford, 2006

Article online:

    * Stolley, 2008

=====================================================================
Posted by hkvonlud ( Oct 08 2008, 09:09:38 AM EDT ) Permalink Comments [2]

Materiality - CRD 704 - Reading 7

Wysocki seems to take some interesting paths in her piece "Opening new media to writing".

One thing I'm never really clear on when I read writing about writing is the reference to creating the self. For awhile reading Wysocki, I kept thinking "what is she talking about?  How am I creating a self through my writing?" But I reread some pieces and I get it (I think): I create a self through my thoughts and their (I don't even know what to call it) presentation to others; I situate myself, etc. But this is not unique to writing is it? I mean, when I speak I also present a self. And when I draw, go to the gym, drive around, shop. I'm curiious why I feel like writing views itself as more privileged in creating a self .

But the interesting part of Wysocki is her use of the concept of materiality to define new media. It's a lengthy definition that includes things like socioeconomic conditions, personal conditions, technological aspects, teacher characteristics and relations, university environment etc. And she asserts that to be considered her definition of new media, the "composers" of it need to be aware of the materiality in themselves and in their work. The materials are the Material. Or maybe its the Material are the materials.

That's a lofty goal, I like the idea but I'm not entirely sure why new media makes this is so important. And how can it even be achieved? I liked the map exercise she designed for students and I think this shows some  of the concept of materiality to students who create them -- especially because it was so visual and textual... but materiality is a long list of concepts to consider and I wonder just how much of it students, or we, can be aware when we compose new media pieces.

=====================================================================

Writing New Media:

• Wysocki, "Opening new media to writing"
• Sirc, "Box-logic"
• Johnson-Eilola, "The database and the essay"

=====================================================================

Posted by hkvonlud ( Oct 01 2008, 06:33:22 AM EDT ) Permalink Comments [0]

CRD 704 - Reading 5

Class assignment:
=====================================================================
Selber, Multiliteracies for a Digital Age
=====================================================================

Most of the readings in the class are from the perspective of the humanities. I think that even the reference to "students as producers of technology" is less related to software developers than communication majors. (The metaphor Selber used is "computers as hypertextual media" and not -- "computers as tools").

I'm not sure what to make of multiliteracies. I "grew up" in Computer Science, the company I work for "makes" software technology. I find myself asking critical questions of the form and function of technology I use or produce in order to make virtual communities at IBM and I wish more people would think critically about what they are using, and why, and producing, and why. So I see merit in this approach.

I just wonder how it translates to engineering. Rhetoric is not just in an interface, although that is certainly an easy-to-understand, superficial place to find it in software. What about how the software functions, and what people can and cannot do with it? (At work, our site has the ability to add members to communities but no ability to un-join. HAHA. It's like the Roach Motel! Truth is, we haven't had time to program it.)

How would engineers apply this multi-literacy program and in what ways would it be different from Selber's vision?


What if a multi-literacy program looked like this:

Institutional
   Pedagogical
      Departmental
          Curricular
              Technical


Posted by hkvonlud ( Sep 17 2008, 09:46:29 AM EDT ) Permalink Comments [3]

CRD 704 - Reading 4

Class assignment:
=============================================================
\Choose 4 chapters to read from Educating the Net Generation

• The Horizon Report (2008)

==============================================================

QUESTION: why do we consider "the kind of knowledge and understanding that emerges from large groups of people" (Horizon Report, 2008) collective "intelligence"? Isn't "intelligence" a relative judgment ?
I'll bet the majority of citizens of 1666 Salem, Massachusetts thought they were pretty intelligent to burn witches!
It's a fine line between intelligence and stupidity -- and there is no true judge of it -- yet the difference is often aided by historical perspective.


Posted by hkvonlud ( Sep 10 2008, 11:44:53 AM EDT ) Permalink Comments [2]

CRD 704 - Reading 3

Class assignment:
==============================================================
Computers in the Composition Classroom:

• Chapter 6 (Selfe)
  
• Chapter 7 (Baron)
  
• Chapter 16 (Palmquist, et al., excerpt from Transitions)

PDF in Blackboard Vista:

• Morreale, et al., 2006
• Kim, 2008

==============================================================


CCCC:
-------------
Industry, and IBM in particular since that is where my experience lies, is guilty of the opposite of Selfe's claim that technology needs exploration in the sense that it needs to STOP using technology to solve any/all problems rather than NOT USING technology to solve any/all problems. In both cases, objective analysis of  is pertinent.

From my perch in Strategy, it always seems like our software products are the offspring of some overzealous technologist with too much time on his (usually his, not always) hands... and our products end up having capabilities that our customers have no immediate or future use for just because the architect finds that functionality "cool'. In Strategy, the worst offenders are executives who -- oh gosh, no kidding -- don't really know what they are technically talking about but hear and use the latest buzzwords and so set directions based on this, err, knowledge. Strategists are certainly technologists, like product architects, and they are also "thinkers" who tend to provide a pro/con analysis along with their opinion on a technology.

Morreale:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few things struck me about this article. If there really is a concern about whether students are prepared for careers and jobs, then:
1. it would seem to be a better idea to give a required course on communication the student's senior year when they won't forget what they learned and have matured enough to actually see how it is useful
2. from an industry perspective, I could not care less about whether someone could speak publicly and give a nice presentation. Often new employees are not going to have that opportunity. Rather, I would like to see an end to the "3 mile island" memos I continuously get from colleagues who are unable to sufficiently distill their thoughts or who drone on and on in a lengthy monologue. What good is a prepared presentation and document when, in industry and so many other parts of life, one has to compose and present on the fly? Why not teach that in a communications course?
3. why not use the academic setting, known for it's supportive learning environment, to allow students to learn presenting via "trial by fire" in the respective classrooms which require presentations? Sounds bad, doesn't it --not to have coaching and  experience in a well thought-out class? But that's how most of learning in industry occurs. So... protecting students from the pain of learning-while-doing just makes them less able to cope in the job market.


Posted by hkvonlud ( Sep 03 2008, 07:25:32 AM EDT ) Permalink Comments [0]

On technology and accomodation in the classroom

Leftover thoughts from the discussion in the pub

---

I fear I was too soft and gentle in my question about whether to accomodate students in their requests to not use technology as part of class activity.

I completely agree that accomodation should follow cases where a student has a personal-value regarding technology which prohibits it use. (concerns about privacy, not wanting to access or fear of inadvertently accessing content).

My question was more about whether to accomodate statements of preference about technology (such as "I don't like blogs therefore I don't want to use them")

Before we continue, let me illustrate something with my favorite example -- the hammer.  (Yes, you might have heard this before).

As I previously mentioned, hammers are used to drive nails or other tapered objects through soft materials, like wood. They are not particularly useful for driving flat-end bolts through concrete. That requires a drill (as I said yesterday, it usually takes a few technological tools to meet all your needs). I've used a hammer, as I'm sure you have, and several times I've hit my thumb. But I've kept on using the hammer.

I've seen firsthand cases of professors who have asked students to use technology 3 times during the entire semester and then succumbed to their pressure not to use it because students "don't like it". This is more akin to what Shayne was saying about a student who was misinformed about YouTube, etc and whom he encouraged to use it but also supported a backup plan.

I'm concerned that accomodating negative preference leads to people who aren't open to trying things more than once (v2.0 upgrade?) and who reject technology in favor of becoming a sideline critic, not to mention encouraging a bunch of whiners who can't stretch themselves for 3 blog posts in a semester. Do I like hitting my thumb with a hammer? No. But I keep using it -- the positives are that hammers are cheap, easy, and convenient.

We read an article about how we need to be more aware of the downsides of technology -- but I also argue we need to be aware and supportive of the positives of technology at the same time. I fear either extreme and am concerned about the researcher who keeps technology safely at a distance while heavily criticizing it.

How do you handle preference with your students?  Do you encourage the use of technology even when it's "not liked" or "not easy to use" etc?

It doesn't seem possible to me that anyone can put their hands up and prevent technology from coming... what about supporting people while they use it so that they challenge themselves in the face of dislike, lack of confidance, etc. We are all too young to be shutting things out.

Why is it we can accept a hammer hitting our thumb a couple of times but we expect modern technologies to be seamlessly easy and lovable?

Posted by hkvonlud ( Aug 28 2008, 07:26:19 AM EDT ) Permalink Comments [0]

CRD 704 - Reading 2

Class assignment:
==============================================================

Computers in the Composition Classroom:

• Chapter 1 (CCCC Position Statement)
• Chapter 2 (Ohmann)
  
• Chapter 3 (Hawisher and Selfe)

PDF in Blackboard Vista:

• 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]

Shoes for Hurricane Season

Posted by hkvonlud ( Aug 21 2008, 09:42:46 PM EDT ) Permalink Comments [0]

Thoughts on M Wesch's YouTube videos

What is different between when I was an undergraduate and current undergraduates?
============================================================
I started college in 1989, the internet was rarely used. Most people couldn't afford personal computers. Cell phones were probably the size of small sedans and so costly that no one had one. All forms of communication and collaboration that stem from the internet and cell phones were nonexistent. So was ADD. It was expected that one attended classes led by instructors who talked at you for hours.

Since then, however, technology has advanced. I use technology, the internet, cellphones, all the time. I wouldn't expect students to sit and listen to a chalk board lecture for 3 hours but at the same time, how to you engage them? What does it take to engage them? Does it have to be in chunks and reduced to 30-second sound bites in order to be considered relevant? (What are the benefits of what seems like discontinuity?) Does class material have to push some creative or intellectual or cultural boundary to be considered interesting and useful?

I work at IBM, with "experienced" professionals (read, old-timers.... 3 ppl on my team of 4 have been there 20+ years. IOW, I'm the newbie). These people can pay attention, hour after hour, I honestly have no idea how they do it. I feel like I have ants in my pants, and can't sit still. I need things to change frequently and to really pay attention I have to go offline. Is that what it is like for current students -- constantly giving attention to many things and never really focusing?
Posted by hkvonlud ( Aug 21 2008, 12:50:39 PM EDT ) Permalink Comments [0]