questioning my impulses to publicly document my life…. when i instagram, or tweet my thoughts (like this), who am i talking to ? and why ?

— steve roggenbuck (@steveroggenbuck) October 5, 2014

Continue reading “Meaning—what I say” →

So here we are, almost at the end of the term and I still am struggling to come up with posts for the blog. During mid-semester conference I said I would write about the readings, however, this week we don’t have any so I am stuck not knowing what to write about to fulfill my goal from the conference.

I’ve decided  to take this time to reflect on past readings. Which ones were our favorites and why we liked them. I know for myself I found quite a few of them rather interesting and so I figured I would discuss them now, there are of course that I was not found of, one being ‘Why Johnny Can’t Write’ which was expressed openly in a past post. However, I wanted this post to be in positive light. So I am going to discuss the ones I liked and I would like for my fellow students to do the same in the comments!

My favorite readings by far have been; Students’ Rights to Their Own Language, “I Just Wanna Be Average”, Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Project, and Becoming Literate: A Lesson from the Amish. I liked these readings for different reasons but a majority of my reasoning is because they are all so different. I also really enjoyed how a lot of them had a personal narrative with them making it easier to get through.

Out of all these readings though I connected most with Becoming Literate: A Lesson from the Amish. I think that I connected with this because it was the furthest thing from relatable for me. I don’t know anything about the Amish and I don’t know much about why they do the things they do but I felt that this article discussed a lot of things that I could relate to in a setting I could not which was only more intriguing for me. I think that this also got down to the root of some of the larger issues that people discuss in literacy communities.

What do you guys think, what were your favorite readings and why? (:

After reading the assignments this week, and after weeks of articles that seemed to heavily suggest the “kids these days” sort of attitude, I couldn’t help but notice a difference in attitude. While Is Google Making us Stupid? certainly came to the conclusion of literacy technologies hindering our former ways of thinking, I actually had to agree initially with the point it was making. It could have been the non-accusatory type of writing, or the fact that it brought in direct sources from scientists about the function of neurological pathways and language development (I’m a sucker for a scientific source). Whatever the reason was, I believed it. It is extremely tough for me to sit down and read a lengthy paper on something that mildly interests me. Even this article was hard to read with all of the adds around it. From as far as I can remember, I cannot think of a time that I was able just sit down and read information flat out.

But then I started to remember what I had available to me as a child. Since I live in a extremely rural town (I’m talking less than 600 people rural), it was pretty tough to get cable or even satellite television, so I didn’t see many shows until I was 17. I ended up watching the news with the rest of my family until I got bored, which was pretty quick. Additionally, our internet was so slow that is was basically useless.

None of the technologies that could have influenced my literacy development, according to Carr, were available to me. I was just simply a hyper-attentive kid that was conditioned by the outdoors instead of new technological advancements. So where do I fit in to his conclusion? Google didn’t really have the opportunity to rewire me until I reached middle school, at which point, I was already unable to focus for long. Is it actually technology, or other factors that influenced my thinking patterns?

After reading about Google and how it is causing everyone to lose the ability to read longer passages and concentrate I took a step back: do I do this? I wasn’t sure then, and I’m not sure now. I’d like to think I can read for extended periods of time and really focus in on something. In fact, I feel that when I do homework this way I have better results.

It was interesting to me that Nietzsche’s writing changed to be more like a telegraph when he started using a typewriter instead of pen and paper. I feel that at this point in my life, I may actually be more capable of prose on a computer than I am on paper. I do most of my writing on a computer right now because I have to for my classes. The only time I hand write is in class when I take notes. Does that mean I’m the opposite of what Carr is suggesting? Am I only this way because I am expected to type my assignments in MLA format? I guess it’s hard to tell at this point. We also grew up using computers at an earlier age than Nicholas Carr did (I’m assuming) and it is possible  that we know how to keep our prose the same regardless of if we are writing or typing. As for reading long texts, I do not think I feel the need to jump around and skim an article if it is longer than three paragraphs. If it is interesting to me; I want to read it. Maybe switching to more technology later in life has these effects but we were born at the right time not to feel them? Am I wrong here? Does anyone else feel they are not incapable of reading for long periods of time and can type and write in the same style? If you do feel a difference, is it in concentration or the style of writing?

My post today deviates a little from the reading this week because I really wanted to talk about my experience with my Literacy in Context essay.

I was very confused at first when Dr. Vee kept stopping each of us when we kept using the word “technology” last week. It seemed like one of those trivial things where she was just busting our chops for the sake of it, but I later realized that she had a very good reason for doing so. As I sat in Starbucks for 2 hours awkwardly staring at people, I realized that there are new sorts of literacy technologies and innovations made every day. Most notably was the lingo I heard the Starbucks staff slinging around. While at first it didn’t really phase me, I realized that nobody else in the entire place had any idea what they were really saying at all. As far as we were concerned, it may as well been a made up language.

This “New Language” wasn’t really new, but it represented a new form of communication and vocabulary that required a certain know how and understanding that the general population did not have. After seeing it in action I realized that technology isn’t just about new gadgets, but about new innovations and inventions that make your lives easier each and every day.

This week’s articles were very interesting to read because they discuss a change in focus that I have experienced first hand. I am not used to assigned readings being that relatable. However, I think the topic of evolving technology is one that anyone could find a connection to. In the Reading in Slow Motion article, the writer mentions the differences between when she was in college writing a paper and when her daughter was writing a paper in school. I thought it was interesting that she think it’s easier for people to write now because the internet is there and so they have all of the information they could ever want at their fingertips. However, I have to say I think it would maybe be harder now. Or at least, harder to write a good essay now. With so much technology available we are flooded with non-scholarly resources, and too much information. We struggle when writing to stay on topic within the paper because we have read too much; we have too much information floating around our heads. We use too many secondary sources and so not much of our paper is valid.

I say “we” and “our” because I know that me and people I went to high school with struggled with all of these things, so I’m sure people both older and younger than me struggled as well. For example, I know tons of people who use Wikipedia as a source. I was told in seventh grade that Wikipedia was, “the devil.” My seventh grade history teacher told my class that before explaining how people can alter what it says and telling us that if anyone used it on their papers they would fail. To this day I tell people that Wikipedia is evil and they shouldn’t use it, even though it’s my dad’s number one source of information.

I guess my question is: do people think that the internet has also presented its challenges to the academic world?

I feel generally conflicted about Nicholas Carr’s article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” because it is in parts relatable and hypocritical. I found it kind of interesting that Carr himself admits that he can’t keep focus after two of three pages of an article, and his is longer than that (I didn’t think it was too long by any means, I just found it interesting that he isn’t adjusting his writing to fit the needs he himself has). While I understand his grief over the decline of deep-reading focus, I also found it pretentious. Even before the internet, there were still people that couldn’t focus on reading enough to eat through War and Peace, or just didn’t want to. The ability to sit and read and block things out doesn’t make one better than anyone else.

Still, my general attitude problem doesn’t detract from the parts of this article that I really related to. I also lose focus easily now, especially if my reading is on the internet. At one point a few weeks ago, I found myself reading a Buzzfeed listicle, with a show on Netflix playing in a background tab, checking twitter on my phone, all while the article I was supposed  to be reading sat “forgotten” in yet another background tab. So much for productivity. My attention span is shot, to be sure. I’m also afraid of artificial intelligence, like HAL or almost any other sci-fi example. I don’t necessarily fear it because I think I will change that shape of human existence, but I think it’s pretty creepy, so I related to Carr on that too.

In retrospect, I don’t really have a question, I just find that lately with the articles we’ve been reading about technology and literacy, I get defensive and confused. I feel like the general tone people take when writing about the modern advances and how they relate to literacy are very “woe is us” or “the future is here”, either way, both of these reactions are too dramatic for me. Is anyone else feeling this way, or am I just turning into a grouchy old person who is annoyed by the influence of newer technological advances?

Indeed, Nicholas Carr, you are correct in saying that “deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.” Now that I sit and think about it, I don’t even know if I have ever participated in deep reading. I was tempted to mention, I deep read when I sit on the beach and tan in the sun, however, I don’t even deep read there. I am focused on so many different things, are there creases in my elbows where the sun will leave nasty tan lines, why is that child splashing water so close to me, young boy who is twenty miles out in the ocean…where are your parents, have I eaten all day. As much as I would like to deep read, I get four sentences in and have to move my chair up because high tide is moving in and then two pages later I have to move my chair back down because of low tide.

The same happens with my mobile device. Is deep reading even possible on such a device? I open an article and before I’m done with it I am opening a different application, scrolling through Instagram photos, checking emails, sending a text reply. BUT I did learn a hell of a lot of cool things.

Fifteen issues women deal with daily that men might not know about, I only learn two of them before clicking away, because Kelly Wingen liked my photo on Instagram, so I might as well go check out Kelly Wingen’s photos, and who’s birthday is it? But oh, they’re private. I got a new email, subject: Weekly Practice Schedule, “no Mom, I don’t need lunch tomorrow,” new text: “Cost Center at 8:00am?! Do I even get to sleep?” and then I realize I haven’t even read issue number three of the fifteen yet so I start the process all over again until I realize my dog needs fed so issues ten through fifteen can wait until I’m done folding the laundry, showering, eating dinner and checking Clash of Clans.

Is this what deep reading has come too?

Until the day comes where I live in seclusion, I may not ever deep read. Actually, that day may never come since my brain is constantly thinking at a million miles a minute. Last week, I was taking a math quiz and found myself thinking about my dog. Bella is not going to help me graph this exponential equation. Then, when I regained my focus, I found myself realizing how disgustingly dirty my nails were (still are!). Ugh.

I mean, I do digest information, actually possibly even at a much more accelerated rate than my dog. I thought she had a short attention span, but thanks to Nicholas Carr and Annette Vee, I have reached the conclusion that mine is shorter. I can’t even deep think when it comes to typing in my log in passwords on my Mac considering this thing remembers every word I have ever typed. If my passwords weren’t the same for every single log in I have, I would be screwed. Okay, there are two different combinations, of the same password (I have to switch it up a bit), but still, thank you Apple for yet another convenience. Can’t a girl do anything on her own anymore? Sheesh.

Rereading this blog post, I am fully convinced I don’t even have a “deep reading” bone in my body. Actually reading anything has convinced myself of this. That’s probably why I have so many questions about…everything. I know in class you are all thinking, “Weren’t you supposed to read that for homework?” Well, yes I did (thank you), however, what does the author even mean? I can’t stay on the same idea for more than three sentences, how am I supposed to read thirty pages without becoming confused and disoriented. Where am I? So, how do you deep read?

This is the second class for which I’ve had to read “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The first class I had to read this article for was my freshman composition class, Growing Up Electronic. In that class we discussed what it meant to grow up in the information age and how it was affecting the ways in which we perceived the world. In that class, I recall being highly skeptical about Carr’s argument about Google making us stupid and how it was changing the ways in which we read, but I was eventually convinced to believe that maybe his arguments did have some substance to them after all. Now, I not only remain just as skeptical about Carr’s argument, but I also don’t agree with his views at all.

I feel like his sensational article was written to probably drum up some form of public support or interest in a very dramatic manner. In fact, I think it relates very closely to the article “Why Jonny Can’t Write” because of how theatrical it sounded. I think because I perceived it as being over dramatic, I honestly felt like his argument didn’t really have very steady legs to stand on. There is no reason why Google should affect the way we read or think. Maybe it’s because I’ve grown up with the internet always being there, but I don’t think I think of a long piece of text any differently from short articles. In fact, I’m pretty sure I prefer longer texts to several short articles because I feel like articles don’t really explore topics in depth as much, leading to the shallow understanding that Carr was talking about. I think short articles are useful when one is specifically looking for a shallow understanding of a topic – why should it be necessary to always want a deep and involved understanding? However, if a more profound meaning is desired, why is it that reading a book or even a longer article is considered such a momentous task? Carr’s exaggerations really irritated me and I wanted more than anything to give him examples countering his arguments. (By the way, does anyone know what study of online research habits he was referring to?) Even his example about the writer Friedrich Nietzsche who used a typewriter to continue writing, which changed his writing to become shorter and concise is only from one person. I disagree with this because I feel I am the exact opposite. When I physically write papers, I am far more concise with my words than when I am typing simply because of the differences in the amount of effort that is exerted.

I agree with him on only two topics in the entire paper and those are 1) that sometimes Google can detract from truly understanding a topic because it is easy to search for the answer, especially when it comes to science and math questions and 2) that the way we read and write can definitely change based on our experiences. I know from experience unfortunately that it is definitely easier to search for answers on how to solve certain problems or even to Sparknotes summaries of books, but people who choose to use those resources do not have a changed way of thinking; I interpret it as they simply have no interest in the topic at hand and want to save themselves time for activities that they do wish to invest time into. Additionally, our ways of reading and writing can certainly change, but I don’t think that Google or the internet is harming or modifying them in any critical way that is forcing us to become more economical with either writing or reading. Even if I were to believe that the internet has taken away a part of us that Carr finds so incredibly important, I will argue to my last breath that it has done us so much more good than harm.

TL;DR: I just don’t agree with Carr and don’t find his argument very convincing.

What do you think? Do you agree with Carr about the internet changing how we think, read, and/ or write? Is Google actually making us stupid?

In 1985 my favorite comic strip began. It detailed a small boy and his “friend” though some may simply call it his imagination. It didn’t take long for the strip to become famous. I was three when the strip ended. Before the final strip was made, there were hundreds of theories on how it would end. The one that hit me hardest was one that demonstrated the effects of attention focusing pills. The strip didn’t end on this note, but the point of this mystery author still hits home.

Flash forward 19 years, to the day that I read about Hyper and Deep Attention. What bothers me most about this essay is that there isn’t an opinion. Nowhere in this article is there an opinion or a fact that I can rub against, ruffling everyone’s feathers and producing discussion. The worst part about this is that modes of attention and effects of media are so freaking interesting. She paints these two perfect pictures of two different methods of learning or attention and doesn’t give us anything to do besides agree. Its a paper that calls an issue to attention, yet it only functions as a basic definition of the issue.

How does literacy play into this? Simple, attention determines level of interaction with the world of cognitive thought. When engaging deep attention readers are able to concentrate wholly on the task at hand while sacrificing attention to the environment around themselves. This means one thing. An uninterrupted stream of consciousness and understanding to that wonderful world of upper level literal thought. This allows for the reader to quickly internalize and interact with the texts and to develop better thoughts. I’m not knocking Hyper attention just yet, but the benefits of Deep attention on creating that upper level of literate understanding is too exciting to jeopardize. Unlike Hayles, I lean towards this type of thought. It not only creates better experiences, but like she mentions early on, is the mark of a civilized education. On top of this it allows for imaginary worlds to develop. Not the kind that someone else prepares for you, but the imaginary world that you create on your own, from your own ideas, with your own rules.

Hyper attention on the other hand slinks into this topic right at the end and attempts to validate itself. Multitasking is great in the non-literate world. It ensures that you can prepare multiple parts of your dinner at once or other shallow thought tasks. Now this doesn’t mean its useless, but Hyper attention has no right to even be remotely discussed as educationally relevant. You know what you get when you rush your ideas?  You get rotten ideas. The kind of ideas that lead to broken ribs or mild concussions.

Literacy isn’t for those unwilling to experience it wholly. True literacy is for those who are willing to work with an idea and get lost in it. To sit in a bed for the entire day daydreaming. So you can keep your loud music and constant distractions, I prefer to explore.

P.S. I’ll leave this here for anyone who is looking for a good cry.