Kaplan: "Ideology, Technology, and the Future of Writing Instruction"
I found myself identifying with the Henry Giroux statement that Kaplan with which Kaplan opened her article.
"Curriculum in the most fundamental sense is a battleground over whose forms of knowledge, history, visions, language, culture, and authority will prevail as a legitimate object of learning and analysis" (11).
Having taught in a Title I school I encountered a great deal of students who moved around a lot. Case in point: the day our end of year standardized testing started a new student was placed on my class roster. She'd moved from Virginia and hadn't been exposed to any of North Carolina's curriculum standards. She'd been in Honors classes in Virginia but hadn't learned what was on the North Carolina test. Her scores came back saying she was below grade level. This example demonstrates the battleground of curriculum with the clash in North Carolina's and Virginia's curriculum standards.
This example helped me internalize how Kaplan outlines that "Tools work for users, but they also influence the shape of users' work, affecting how users understand their world and their scope of action within it" (11). The day I had to tell that student her score, she dissolved into tears. She told me she'd always been good in math and felt stupid. By changing the curriculum she was expected to master, the tools she'd used to understand math in Virginia were no longer relevant in North Carolina. She'd always been successful in math in Virginia. The tools she'd learned no longer worked to help her understand her world and the action she had to take in it. This was her first failure in math and she didn't know how to deal with it. This is one of the many reasons I support a national curriculum, but I digress.
Having made this connection I was able to apply it to the argument Kaplan makes for how technology is changing writing instruction. It's a Foucault field day with regard to power relations. Inclusion of Ohmann's statement, "technology...is itself a social process, saturated with the power relations around it, continually reshaped according to some people's intentions" (23) points this out. I felt the clash in curriculum example is brought full circle to connect with writing technology when Kaplan noted, "Only when hardware, software, and the multiple literacies enabling their use are available equally to all, of course, can the 'free' information flow freely, and even then only as freely as systems designers and the companies who own the software will allow" (26-27). Virginia won't teach North Carolina's curriculum and vice versa. Standards students learn in one state aren't available to students in others. It's yet another way that tools confine users.
Sullivan: "Taking Control of the Page: Electronic Writing and Word Publishing"
As soon as Sullivan mentioned that "the writer is entering an era where the published page is more directly under her or his control" (44) I thought of Dr. Palmquist's presentation about the Future of the Book. It was interesting that Dr. Palmquist had already addressed one of Sullivan's concerns. Sullivan brought up that "writers currently are trained to think little about the look of the text. That problem is increasingly important" (55). Dr. Palmquist's work with WAC Clearinghouse still considers text layout and formatting by hiring and training grad students to work on it. The method used by WAC Clearinghouse does not, however, work toward teaching the writer how to mediate between "the text driven perspective of a writer and the spatial-aesthetic perspective of a designer" (58). The jobs remain separate. Nonetheless, I believe a case study of WAC Clearinghouse is directly applicable to continuing the discussion of issues that Sullivan brings up about word publishing.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
10.13.11 - Response to Bolter & Grusin and Buxton
Buxton: "Design for the Wild" and "Case Study: Apple, Design, and Business"
First I must say that the timing of reading the Apple case study in relation to the death of Steve Jobs last week was surreal but incredibly appropriate. Buxton's case study of how Jobs encouraged a design focused environment at Apple was a wonderful way to remember his contributions. I hope that Apple doesn't lose that vision as it moves forward.
When I finished these chapters I didn't want to put the book down. I wouldn't have but for a busy reading schedule of other assignments. I very much respect and appreciate how Buxton provides real life examples (avalanche rescue and arctic navigation of the Inuit) to tie into his points about design in the business world. Wonderful connections. He also mixes visuals well with the text. The figures he's chosen to include helped me understand the point he was making. They, in fact, enhanced his point. It's a well written book that keeps the reader's attention in mind. Buxton definitely considered his users when writing this book, and I truly appreciate that.
Buxton's point that "the representational power of the tool is meaningful only within the larger social and physical context within which it is situated" (33) resonated with me. His use of the 3-D wooden maps to support this point was excellent. Technology can't always be replied upon, as Buxton showed in contrasting the cell phone and computer maps with the Ammassalik's wooden maps. As Buxton notes, "Without informed design, technology is more likely to be bad than good" (38). Don't underestimate the power or research. Know the context in which the design will be used. This led in perfectly the Apple case study. (Something tells me Kolko would appreciate this case study.) I was most drawn to the focus on the iPod's evolution. I hadn't realized it'd taken 4 generations for the iPod to "tip" even though I lived through it. This draws you right into the environment and understanding the context. The user's feel and experience was continually improved because "Le bon Dieu est dans le détail" (51). Meanwhile the social environment dictated a great deal about the iPod--getting people to buy songs when they expected to download them for free. That Jobs also thought to turn the Gillette model on its head was another wonderful leveraging innovation, one that understood the context that people wouldn't pay large amounts for music. In regard to applying this to my social media analysis, I plan to make sure that the tool or recommendations I make to the library encompass the context.
Bolter and Grusin
"Our culture wants both to multiply its media and to erase all traces of mediation: ideally, it wants to erase its media in the very act of multiply them" (Bolter & Grusin 5). It is a double logic that took awhile to fully wrap my mind around. Elaboration and the examples provided for immediacy and hypermediacy helped to illustrate this point. Interestingly, they continue to apply as the media employed by advances in technology evolve. I would like to hear how Bolter and Grusin would approach changes to media since writing this article and how each uses immediacy and hypermediacy. YouTube? Smartphones? These two examples alone contribute to the act of multiplying media while erasing mediation, especially from the amateur perspective.
I also feel that Bolter and Grusin's distinction about how immediacy removes the programmer/creator from the image is something to note. Its sets the tone well for the approach they take that sets up photography, film, virtual reality, etc. for transparency. After studying and analyzing the myth of photographic truth in ENGL 853 and reconciling with the idea that truths from photographs are constructed by the photographer with her choice of framing, with what images from a series of takes are shown, etc. it was quite a contrast to read that Bolter and Grusin approach photographs as reality, as transparent. Bolter and Grusin use the example of Alberti's On Painting to illustrate this point well. "'On the surface on which I am going to paint, I draw a rectangle of whatever size I want, which I regard as an open window through which the subject to be painted is seen.' If executed properly, the surface of the painting dissolved and presented to the viewer the scene beyond" (25). I can see why they make the argument that these examples of media achieve the real. Denying mediation, however, seems like something I will no longer be able to do. Truth in images is the truth that the creator is allowing viewers to see. Things will be eliminated. The entire context is not present. If a photographer takes 12 frames of one situation, in choosing one of the 12 to publish or share, they're in a way manipulating the truth the viewer can see. The same applies to film and computer programming. Thus Bolter and Grusin were unable to fully convince me that immediacy achieves placing viewers in the truth of reality. I will agree with them that "Mediation is the remediation of reality because media themselves are real and because the experience is the subject of remediation" (59). It is real, but I don't believe that it allows for a pure truth or pure reality--with what creators choose to show and not show truth is manipulated.
While reading Bolter and Grusin I tried to think how their findings might be relevant to my upcoming cyberpoem. I can't say that I'll strive for complete immediacy or that I'll be fully able to achieve the sense that the medium will disappear entirely. Hypermediacy will certainly be employed; my cyberpoem will encompass multiple acts of representation. Since I haven't finalized everything, I can't yet say if I'll make use of sound, but I hope to consider and experiment with it. That of course will be paired with animation and the words forming the lines of my poem. There will be mediation among the various elements brought together to achieve the cyberpoem. I find that my finished cyberpoem may end up illustrating how remediation helps us interpret other forms of media. As Bolter and Grusin note "No medium...can now function independently and establish its own separate and purified space of cultural meaning" (55).
First I must say that the timing of reading the Apple case study in relation to the death of Steve Jobs last week was surreal but incredibly appropriate. Buxton's case study of how Jobs encouraged a design focused environment at Apple was a wonderful way to remember his contributions. I hope that Apple doesn't lose that vision as it moves forward.
When I finished these chapters I didn't want to put the book down. I wouldn't have but for a busy reading schedule of other assignments. I very much respect and appreciate how Buxton provides real life examples (avalanche rescue and arctic navigation of the Inuit) to tie into his points about design in the business world. Wonderful connections. He also mixes visuals well with the text. The figures he's chosen to include helped me understand the point he was making. They, in fact, enhanced his point. It's a well written book that keeps the reader's attention in mind. Buxton definitely considered his users when writing this book, and I truly appreciate that.
Buxton's point that "the representational power of the tool is meaningful only within the larger social and physical context within which it is situated" (33) resonated with me. His use of the 3-D wooden maps to support this point was excellent. Technology can't always be replied upon, as Buxton showed in contrasting the cell phone and computer maps with the Ammassalik's wooden maps. As Buxton notes, "Without informed design, technology is more likely to be bad than good" (38). Don't underestimate the power or research. Know the context in which the design will be used. This led in perfectly the Apple case study. (Something tells me Kolko would appreciate this case study.) I was most drawn to the focus on the iPod's evolution. I hadn't realized it'd taken 4 generations for the iPod to "tip" even though I lived through it. This draws you right into the environment and understanding the context. The user's feel and experience was continually improved because "Le bon Dieu est dans le détail" (51). Meanwhile the social environment dictated a great deal about the iPod--getting people to buy songs when they expected to download them for free. That Jobs also thought to turn the Gillette model on its head was another wonderful leveraging innovation, one that understood the context that people wouldn't pay large amounts for music. In regard to applying this to my social media analysis, I plan to make sure that the tool or recommendations I make to the library encompass the context.
Bolter and Grusin
"Our culture wants both to multiply its media and to erase all traces of mediation: ideally, it wants to erase its media in the very act of multiply them" (Bolter & Grusin 5). It is a double logic that took awhile to fully wrap my mind around. Elaboration and the examples provided for immediacy and hypermediacy helped to illustrate this point. Interestingly, they continue to apply as the media employed by advances in technology evolve. I would like to hear how Bolter and Grusin would approach changes to media since writing this article and how each uses immediacy and hypermediacy. YouTube? Smartphones? These two examples alone contribute to the act of multiplying media while erasing mediation, especially from the amateur perspective.
I also feel that Bolter and Grusin's distinction about how immediacy removes the programmer/creator from the image is something to note. Its sets the tone well for the approach they take that sets up photography, film, virtual reality, etc. for transparency. After studying and analyzing the myth of photographic truth in ENGL 853 and reconciling with the idea that truths from photographs are constructed by the photographer with her choice of framing, with what images from a series of takes are shown, etc. it was quite a contrast to read that Bolter and Grusin approach photographs as reality, as transparent. Bolter and Grusin use the example of Alberti's On Painting to illustrate this point well. "'On the surface on which I am going to paint, I draw a rectangle of whatever size I want, which I regard as an open window through which the subject to be painted is seen.' If executed properly, the surface of the painting dissolved and presented to the viewer the scene beyond" (25). I can see why they make the argument that these examples of media achieve the real. Denying mediation, however, seems like something I will no longer be able to do. Truth in images is the truth that the creator is allowing viewers to see. Things will be eliminated. The entire context is not present. If a photographer takes 12 frames of one situation, in choosing one of the 12 to publish or share, they're in a way manipulating the truth the viewer can see. The same applies to film and computer programming. Thus Bolter and Grusin were unable to fully convince me that immediacy achieves placing viewers in the truth of reality. I will agree with them that "Mediation is the remediation of reality because media themselves are real and because the experience is the subject of remediation" (59). It is real, but I don't believe that it allows for a pure truth or pure reality--with what creators choose to show and not show truth is manipulated.
While reading Bolter and Grusin I tried to think how their findings might be relevant to my upcoming cyberpoem. I can't say that I'll strive for complete immediacy or that I'll be fully able to achieve the sense that the medium will disappear entirely. Hypermediacy will certainly be employed; my cyberpoem will encompass multiple acts of representation. Since I haven't finalized everything, I can't yet say if I'll make use of sound, but I hope to consider and experiment with it. That of course will be paired with animation and the words forming the lines of my poem. There will be mediation among the various elements brought together to achieve the cyberpoem. I find that my finished cyberpoem may end up illustrating how remediation helps us interpret other forms of media. As Bolter and Grusin note "No medium...can now function independently and establish its own separate and purified space of cultural meaning" (55).
10.6.11 - Response to Jenkins
Henry Jenkins: Convergence
Culture
I appreciate Jenkins' point but really just wanted him to make it and wrap it up. However, it seems it could be made sooner. Stop reiterating the same point that's already been made. Just as he did when he spoke to use in the Class of 1941 Studio, he got long-winded. The information he presents is interesting. Even though it's not at the cutting edge of convergence culture, compliments of the delay in publication, the information is relevant. Relevant, but not engaging. I'm neither a fan of American Idol nor The Matrix, but I don't think that's the problem. Usually as I read I can find multiple points of interest, things I want to come back to. I highlight them so I can find them easily later. This happened 4 times throughout this reading. That may be an all time low. Lacking any other inspiration, I'll discuss the 4 sections I marked.
In his chapter on American Idol Jenkins notes that "Researchers have found that such shared rituals or mutual evaluations are central to the sense of affiliation members feel to the group, and it makes sense that similar rituals would be played out in individual households" (81). But wait a minute. Didn't Howard recommend that we use rituals as part of the Influence component of RIBS? It's helpful to have example to support ritual, but really Jenkins?
Also in his American Idol chapter Jenkins looks at the effects of "a time when networks and sponsors are joining forces to shape the emotional context through which we watch their shows" (93). At the same time "consumers are also scrutinizing the mechanisms of participation they are being offered. If the rhetoric of lovemarks emphasizes the audience's activities and investments as a central source of value in brands, then the consumption community may well hold the corporations accountable for what they do in the name of those brands and for their responsiveness (or lack thereof) to consumer demands" (93). Takeaway: strategies can always backfire with audience backlash. Then again, it seems that Jenkins already made this point with his Survivor example. Yes, the idea of how sponsors play into this is new; it wasn't in the Survivor case study. Okay. Consider how sponsors can be affected. Also weigh that you may bring new viewers to the show due to "heat" around it with losing dedicated viewers.
Yes, this chapter about American Idol was a lot more about creating rituals and being aware of what happens when networks and sponsors work together. It failed to prove relevant for me though.
In terms of The Matrix Jenkins looks at how different uses of media can bring in consumers from different niches. Sounds good. I like the idea. It may work for the library social media campaign on a smaller scale. use various forms of social media, not just one. We may be on to something here. With respect to The Matrix Jenkins notes: "The economic logic of a horizontally integrated entertainment industry--that is, one where a single company may have roots across all of the different media sectors--dictates the flow of content across media. Different media attract different market niches....A good transmedia franchise works to attract multiple constituencies by pitching the content somewhat differently in the different media" (98). So this is a gem. Work with different media sectors and use the niches of each to compliment one another.
Finally, Jenkins uses a comment from Ed Sanchez about transmedia storytelling surrounding The Blair Witch Project. "If you give people enough stuff to explore, they will explore.... If people have to work for something, they devote more time to it. And they give it more emotional value" (105). Emotional connections are good. They help build loyal consumers. Working for something also ties into the user's experience. I'm still, however, considering how I could implement this in something like the library's social media campaign. There's something here that just needs to be considered further.
I appreciate Jenkins' point but really just wanted him to make it and wrap it up. However, it seems it could be made sooner. Stop reiterating the same point that's already been made. Just as he did when he spoke to use in the Class of 1941 Studio, he got long-winded. The information he presents is interesting. Even though it's not at the cutting edge of convergence culture, compliments of the delay in publication, the information is relevant. Relevant, but not engaging. I'm neither a fan of American Idol nor The Matrix, but I don't think that's the problem. Usually as I read I can find multiple points of interest, things I want to come back to. I highlight them so I can find them easily later. This happened 4 times throughout this reading. That may be an all time low. Lacking any other inspiration, I'll discuss the 4 sections I marked.
In his chapter on American Idol Jenkins notes that "Researchers have found that such shared rituals or mutual evaluations are central to the sense of affiliation members feel to the group, and it makes sense that similar rituals would be played out in individual households" (81). But wait a minute. Didn't Howard recommend that we use rituals as part of the Influence component of RIBS? It's helpful to have example to support ritual, but really Jenkins?
Also in his American Idol chapter Jenkins looks at the effects of "a time when networks and sponsors are joining forces to shape the emotional context through which we watch their shows" (93). At the same time "consumers are also scrutinizing the mechanisms of participation they are being offered. If the rhetoric of lovemarks emphasizes the audience's activities and investments as a central source of value in brands, then the consumption community may well hold the corporations accountable for what they do in the name of those brands and for their responsiveness (or lack thereof) to consumer demands" (93). Takeaway: strategies can always backfire with audience backlash. Then again, it seems that Jenkins already made this point with his Survivor example. Yes, the idea of how sponsors play into this is new; it wasn't in the Survivor case study. Okay. Consider how sponsors can be affected. Also weigh that you may bring new viewers to the show due to "heat" around it with losing dedicated viewers.
Yes, this chapter about American Idol was a lot more about creating rituals and being aware of what happens when networks and sponsors work together. It failed to prove relevant for me though.
In terms of The Matrix Jenkins looks at how different uses of media can bring in consumers from different niches. Sounds good. I like the idea. It may work for the library social media campaign on a smaller scale. use various forms of social media, not just one. We may be on to something here. With respect to The Matrix Jenkins notes: "The economic logic of a horizontally integrated entertainment industry--that is, one where a single company may have roots across all of the different media sectors--dictates the flow of content across media. Different media attract different market niches....A good transmedia franchise works to attract multiple constituencies by pitching the content somewhat differently in the different media" (98). So this is a gem. Work with different media sectors and use the niches of each to compliment one another.
Finally, Jenkins uses a comment from Ed Sanchez about transmedia storytelling surrounding The Blair Witch Project. "If you give people enough stuff to explore, they will explore.... If people have to work for something, they devote more time to it. And they give it more emotional value" (105). Emotional connections are good. They help build loyal consumers. Working for something also ties into the user's experience. I'm still, however, considering how I could implement this in something like the library's social media campaign. There's something here that just needs to be considered further.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)