This post is in response to both the article "Electronic Book Stirs Unease at Book Fair," by Edward Wyatt of the International Herald Tribune and Heather Nowak's response on her blog. I have been intrigued by Amazon's Kindle for awhile now. I like the idea of a portable library and its screen is supposed to be "paper like," without the glare associated with most electronics. But for me, a device like the Kindle could never replace my real library. I am a bibliophile and LOVE the feel, smell, experience of the physical book. Heather also discusses the physical sensation of the book in her post:
I think the nostalgic aspect of reading a hard copy book is what disturbs people that are opposed to all-online books. The article mentions that, "anything that lasts 500 years is not easily improved upon. Books are so good you can't out-book the book." I tend to agree because I am myself a collector of old, leather-bound books. And I love the smell of old musty books :).
However, the ease of this technology (which I think is similar to the audiobook and its ease of use on the iPod) can't be bad. I will always believe that the more we can encourage people to read, the better.
Heather also brings up an interesting point in terms of ecology. Is an electronic book device like the Kindle better for the environment than the paper-based book:
However, what about saving paper? What about the whole "going green" move? I'm serious here. We would save so much paper and energy moving books to online databases. It seems that the positives of moving to online-only formats are great....
This is an interesting idea. I recently read something (I know...this sounds real reliable--I wish I could remember where I read this) that actually said the opposite. The carbon footprint created by the energy to run electronics (like the Kindle) outweighs the motives to save trees (at least as we get our energy now).
Finally, I think this article addresses many of the issues we discussed at the beginning of this course. Are we the last generation that will care about the physical book, or what Heather already calls "nostalgic?" Will future generations (and even the younger ones of today) understand the love of the physical reading experience? If digital forms do take over the book industry, will composition teachers (like Heather and myself in the future years) be able to make this switch?
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
Jacqueline
In honor of our professor (and in retaliation for all of the Starship and Fleetwood Mac).
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Virtual Field Trips
Laurel Rosenhall's article for sacbee.com details the use of virtual field trips (via video screens, etc) as a replacement for the lack of real field trips due to funding. While I agree that "virtual visits are...better than no visits at all," I don't think virtual field trips are the answer. The emphasis on standardized testing and budget cuts has all but eliminated the elements that made school great and interesting (music class, art, drama, after school activities, electives, field trips). Instead of giving in to this decline and finding substitutes, we should be fighting for their return.
However, this doesn't mean that I don't see any good in virtual field trips. The JASON Project is a good use of this technology. In these field trips, students were able to "visit" places that would be completely out of reach for the average person, such as the depths of the sea, the Amazon, or outer space. The video conferencing field trips allowed students to ask scientists questions, see areas that most people would never experience on their own, and delve deep into scientific issues. This type of field trip adds to their curriculum and experience--it does not replace the other types of field trips. But the field trips featured in Rosenhall's article deprive students of the multi-sensory experience and sense of fun that local field trips provide.
However, this doesn't mean that I don't see any good in virtual field trips. The JASON Project is a good use of this technology. In these field trips, students were able to "visit" places that would be completely out of reach for the average person, such as the depths of the sea, the Amazon, or outer space. The video conferencing field trips allowed students to ask scientists questions, see areas that most people would never experience on their own, and delve deep into scientific issues. This type of field trip adds to their curriculum and experience--it does not replace the other types of field trips. But the field trips featured in Rosenhall's article deprive students of the multi-sensory experience and sense of fun that local field trips provide.
A Rape in Cyberspace
Jillian Dibbell's essay on cyberspace rape deeply disturbed me. Dibbell recounts a series of events that occurred on LambdaMOO: a character brutally rapes others in a virtual world and the community reacts by "toading" the attacker. But the boundary between reality and virtuality is extremely murky here.
Without diminishing how awful it must have been for those virtual characters, I have to admit a disdain for the tossing around of the word "rape." The overgeneralization of this word worries me. People now use it to imply any type of violation, which minimizes the word's import in its original form. If "rape" can mean both an economic action (as in a student's proclamation that the Cal State system is "raping" him) and the physical and sexual assault on a human being, then the one type of "rape" is no worse than the other. Sexual assault and its psychological and physical effects become minimized.
So is an assault in cyberspace really rape? I have to say no. Is it a violation--the removal of safety in an environment that should be free of anxiety (especially since you are actually in your own home)? Yes. But the use of the word "rape" here is polarizing and diminishes rape in the real world.
Similarly is "toading" akin to the death penalty? Again, I understand the worries over this issue, but I cannot link toading with the death penalty--especially since users are able to "come back from the dead" and reregister under different e-mails and screen names.
I think the more important issue here is the idea of toading as censorship. My understanding is that under a democracy (and our Constitution), actions can be restricted, but words fall under freedom of expression. Since the cyberspace "rape" occurs through words (and command keys), isn't toading censoring this user's ideas and words? While there are restrictions on freedom of expression (in that threats are restricted, etc), are the "actions" directed by key strokes aimed at virtual characters really threats? I don't know. I'm sure that the more someone is involved in the virtual world, the more these threats seem real. So as our world becomes more virtual (and the virtual world becomes more "real"), the blurring of our real selves with our virtual selves will complicate these questions (and the answers that we have already offered).
Without diminishing how awful it must have been for those virtual characters, I have to admit a disdain for the tossing around of the word "rape." The overgeneralization of this word worries me. People now use it to imply any type of violation, which minimizes the word's import in its original form. If "rape" can mean both an economic action (as in a student's proclamation that the Cal State system is "raping" him) and the physical and sexual assault on a human being, then the one type of "rape" is no worse than the other. Sexual assault and its psychological and physical effects become minimized.
So is an assault in cyberspace really rape? I have to say no. Is it a violation--the removal of safety in an environment that should be free of anxiety (especially since you are actually in your own home)? Yes. But the use of the word "rape" here is polarizing and diminishes rape in the real world.
Similarly is "toading" akin to the death penalty? Again, I understand the worries over this issue, but I cannot link toading with the death penalty--especially since users are able to "come back from the dead" and reregister under different e-mails and screen names.
I think the more important issue here is the idea of toading as censorship. My understanding is that under a democracy (and our Constitution), actions can be restricted, but words fall under freedom of expression. Since the cyberspace "rape" occurs through words (and command keys), isn't toading censoring this user's ideas and words? While there are restrictions on freedom of expression (in that threats are restricted, etc), are the "actions" directed by key strokes aimed at virtual characters really threats? I don't know. I'm sure that the more someone is involved in the virtual world, the more these threats seem real. So as our world becomes more virtual (and the virtual world becomes more "real"), the blurring of our real selves with our virtual selves will complicate these questions (and the answers that we have already offered).
The Virtual Classroom
Luis Zaragoza's article for the OrlandoSentinel.com discusses the use of a virtual classroom to train teachers to deal with disciplinary issues and practice classroom management.
In a virtual classroom, five computers are programmed with distinct personalities, many of which would be considered discipline issues in the real world. The teacher must deal with the issue (rather than send the student for a "time out"). Administrators can also infiltrate the computers to make them "act up" in a certain way.
While the idea of allowing teachers to develop strategies without using real students as guinea pigs is intriguing, this virtual classroom frustrates me. Without seeing this program in action, I believe this virtual classroom has some pitfalls. One of the amazing dynamics in the classroom is how eye contact, personal contact, and rapport works both between students and teacher, and students with other students. I do not think this can be simulated. Hence, the strategies that might work with real students may not work with virtual ones. Also, this simulation appears to be much more difficult than an actual classroom in that administrators can prevent the virtual student from responding to the teacher's management. Is the purpose just to frustrate the beginner teacher and scare him/her into thinking that these strategies won't work? One of the originators of the program (Dieker) states, "Kids remember for a long time when things go wrong." My answer to that is, "So do teachers."
In a virtual classroom, five computers are programmed with distinct personalities, many of which would be considered discipline issues in the real world. The teacher must deal with the issue (rather than send the student for a "time out"). Administrators can also infiltrate the computers to make them "act up" in a certain way.
While the idea of allowing teachers to develop strategies without using real students as guinea pigs is intriguing, this virtual classroom frustrates me. Without seeing this program in action, I believe this virtual classroom has some pitfalls. One of the amazing dynamics in the classroom is how eye contact, personal contact, and rapport works both between students and teacher, and students with other students. I do not think this can be simulated. Hence, the strategies that might work with real students may not work with virtual ones. Also, this simulation appears to be much more difficult than an actual classroom in that administrators can prevent the virtual student from responding to the teacher's management. Is the purpose just to frustrate the beginner teacher and scare him/her into thinking that these strategies won't work? One of the originators of the program (Dieker) states, "Kids remember for a long time when things go wrong." My answer to that is, "So do teachers."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
