Welcome, everyone, to our class blog! This semester we will focus on real-life contexts for conversation and persuasion, and this blog is a reflection of that. It is a place of conversation for us, but it is also public because rhetoric isn't something that we should discuss in the classroom and then forget when we leave that space: it has the power to affect change in the world around us.
Each week, one group will serve as the discussion leader for the blog. It is your job to post questions to generate discussion and prompt critical thinking about the week's readings. Your questions should be open-ended rather closed-ended (yes-no) questions. Post your questions by 11:59 PM on Sunday.
Every student should respond to the questions posted; this equates to being "present" for the online course discussion. Your responses should not be vague, surface-level statements. You must demonstrate that you have read and understand the concepts in the readings. Post your responses by 11:59 PM on Wednesday.
One ground rule: make sure to use your ASU Google ID for your blog posts. This will ensure that you get credit for posting. It's also a good idea to "follow" the blog so that you know when new questions have been posted.
It's easy to get to Blogger from your ASU gmail. Simply click on "More" in the toolbar along the top and choose "Blogger." You may be prompted to set up a profile.
To start off with, I'd like you to view a couple of blogs that I've set up for other courses to get a feel for the blog expectations. The questions are posted by and answered by students, so you will see some fantastic things and some not-so-fantastic things. Learn from both!
Thinking Critically about New Media http://thinkingcriticallyaboutnewmedia.blogspot.com/
Writing Center Internship Course http://uawcinterns.blogspot.com/2010/01/welcome.html
For this week's discussion, choose one thread in one of the above blogs to comment on. Your job is to look for what you can learn from either strengths or weaknesses in the posts. For instance, you might comment on how a particular discussion question was really effective and then explain WHY you think so (be specific!). Or, perhaps, you might comment on a particular student's response to a post and critique why it was weak (and why you won't do the same thing :) ).
I don't want everyone to comment on the same exact thing, so make sure you all don't just look at the first post on one of the blogs. If you see others have spent a lot of time commenting on a particular post, look for another one to talk about.
Feel free to disagree and challenge one another (in a respectful way, of course). If you think that the post your peer thinks was great wasn't, then talk about it!
You may be prompted to select a profile when you try to comment. Simply click "Google Account" and use your ASU Google ID. You will be directed to a log in screen.
ReplyDeleteUniversity gmail accounts are a little bit different because Google doesn't host the passwords--the university does. So when you get to the log in page, enter your ASU email address, SKIP the password field, and click "Sign In." This will take you to the ASUrite log in.
You can avoid this extra step by first logging into your ASU gmail and accessing Blogger through the "More" tab.
If you accessed Blogger from the link in your ASU gmail inbox, Blogger probably already recognizes you.
I read the blog and posts included in "Thinking Critically About New Media." Many of the students had like responses. But one comment provoked my interest almost immediately. Mirka H., who responded last on the blog, left a concise impression on her* readers. She successfully achieved this by setting herself apart from the other student comments.
ReplyDeleteFirst, she had structure--in both formatting and content. Unlike most of the comments, she left a comment containing multiple paragraphs. Due to her deviation, this formatting decision begs for attention. She continues to capture readers' interest when she provides focused content in a concise manner. For example, in the first sentence of her first paragraph, she immediately states her thesis-- adding complexity to the paper in the first sentence. Mirka's use of structure incites readers to complete their reading of her comment.
Secondly, she compared and contrasted her past ideas with her present insight. In her second paragraph she says, "...I had seen..." followed by, "I had not seen, however..." in the next sentence. She, again, adds complexity laconically with these sentences.
Finally, she provides textual support and evidence to support her new or more developed reasoning. She cites activities involving Turing, a discussion through Gender Online, and The Garden of Forking Paths. Not only do these supports add credibility to her comment, they also prove that she actively engaged in her class activities throughout the semester (which, frankly, I assume was the point of this blog assignment).
In the end, this comment stood out to me because Mirka obviously took time to complete it, thought about her organization, and stood out from the other comments. So, I would say that this comment served as a good example because it shows that a succinct, planned, and supported statement can enhance a writer's clarity and purpose.
*I realize that Mirka could also be a boy, but I picked a gender to avoid writing he or she and him or her throughout the comment.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI read the blog, "The Panopticon and Online "Privacy".) As I was reading through the students' comments, there was one student whose post stood out to me. Natasha H. replied to the blogger very effectively.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading Natasha's post because she included quite a few things in her comment that other students did not. One of the main things that I thought to be beneficial in her post is her examples relating to her real life. First, Natasha began by defining "panopticon" and explaining a popular movie and book that might help the reader better understand her topic. She thoroughly explained how the movie, "The Truman Show" and the book, "1984" relate to her topic and why it is important. This is one thing that many other students did not do. I really appreciated her connecting text to real life.
Towards the end of the post, Natasha sums up her comment by explaining how she "surveils" her online activity in case someone is watching. She described in detail the steps and procedures she takes in order to protect herself online. This is one answer in her comment that was not present in other students' comments. I noticed that many of the students had quite a few profound things to say and opinions on the subject, but they did not actually answer the blogger's question.
The blogger wanted to know how the reader ultimately "surveils" their online activity. Natasha was one of the few students or answered this question effectively. She not only provided a definition and examples, she also answered the question fully. In my future blogs, I will ensure to not only provide my opinion, but also answer the blogger's question and provide real life examples to go along with it.
I read the blog, “Hacktivism.” The students had to answer several questions for this post; therefore an effective response to the post would have answered every question. Jennifer P did just that.
ReplyDeleteJennifer begins by defining each term: hacker, hacking, and hacktivism. She draws a conclusion from two articles that hacktivism is when hackers use “their skills in order to make a statement and change society’s structures, rules, and impressions on hackers for the better.”
Jennifer continues to answer the various questions in the next paragraphs while also putting in her own opinions. She explains that a person becomes a hacker when they “knowingly breech the legal barriers between what information is allowed to them and other people’s ‘private’ information.” Concluding from that statement, Jennifer goes on to determine that a person trying to guess another person’s password to their computer is therefore considered hacking.
Continuing to follow the prompt, Jennifer states her opinion on whether hacking can be used for good causes or if it is simply inherently evil. She decides that whether hacking is good or evil varies for each situation in which it occurs.
I think Jennifer P was extremely effective in answering the prompt in the blog post. She answered each question directly and even added her opinion. However, I believe that she lacked examples and citations to the suggested articles. Overall, in my opinion, Jennifer successfully answered the questions.
I had the pleasure of reading "Learning Diversity." I found within these comments that people would expand upon the ideas others portrayed earlier and that this was one of the most effective strategies to dig deeper into a discussion and make it come alive.
ReplyDeleteSince this blog was a somewhat sensitive subject people held back their opinions slightly but did however share many personal stories in order to relate their life with the blog. For the most part this worked well as long as they did not stray away from the topic as Benjamin did. He did not even recognize the original blog until halfway through his comment.
Another thing I enjoyed about this post is a post by Revae who took the attention away from "everything is the teacher's/tutor's doing." They put that the student has to overcome obstacles and it is their choice whether or not they will succeed. This also produces the point that the disabled are people also since everyone is going to have difficulties somewhere in their life.
Overall, I actually enjoyed reading the blog and am looking forward to commenting on future ones. I just want to wish everyone luck in these blogs to come. However, once they do come... no mercy. ;)
It was interesting reading the post about twitter, especially when it was posted in 2009. It amazed me how many people thought that it was useless like how Josten said. It also amazed me how they thought that twitter would not last and it was just a phase. In reality we’re in 2012 and twitter is a phenomenon not just for people who fallow there favorite celebrities but now in days many television shows have their twitter, there is even scholarships that go on in twitter. In reality twitter has proven wrong many comments that your former students said.
ReplyDeleteI will add that I personally don’t have a twitter just if you think I’m bias but it certainly is not a waist.
I read "Gender Online." My main problem with this discussion was that the three questions given in the initial post were not expansive enough to encourage a discussion for 34 commenters. The main post basically asked if gender roles offline lead to a gender gap online, whether or not men are willing to accept women into their "male dominated cyberworld", and how technological advancements affect the gender gap.
ReplyDeleteWhile a majority of the commenters answered the three questions presented, it became rather tedious because many of the answers were repetitive. I found the most interesting posts to be those that branched out of the main questions and made different observations. For example, Julia pointed out that out of the two articles the students read, one was written by a male, and the other was written by two females. She noted how the opposing genders might affect the bias of the articles. David W. pointed out the flaws in the reasoning of one of the articles, and discussed how females encourage the stereotype of males being the "overbearing, control-freakish sex". These comments were extremely refreshing, but they did not answer the questions presented. In order to incite discussion, the initial post either should have given commenters more room to branch out on the existing questions or provided more broad questions than the ones asked.
I don't mean to say that the initial post was the reason that so many posts were repetitive. Most commenters only took the time to read the articles and questions and respond with their own opinions. If they read the comments that preceded them, they (for the most part) did not address any flawed reasoning that they most likely noticed. I got very excited when Christine pointed out that Natasha wasn't paying close enough attention the year one of the articles was written. More conversation like that would have given commenters a discussion that delved deeper into the issue of Gender Online than what was accomplished.
I noticed that spelling, grammatical errors, and abrupt sentences really detracted from several commenters' arguments. Also, there is a fine line between using quotes as a basis of an argument/opinion and using quotes just to fill space in a comment.
When looking for a blog to comment on, I came across "Thinking Critically About New Media". As I was reading through the posted comments, I became bored quickly. Most of the responses were more of a drag to read rather than interesting.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was great how most had written several paragraphs in response; however, a lot of students write long responses in order to trick the audience that they spent a lot of time going into deep thought. When I read more into the comments, a lot were repetitive and didn't have a lot of meaning behind what they were saying. Also, many included the generic statement of "Before taking this course...". Due to this, it's very hard to hold a reader's attention. The commenters should have used a different approach in doing so instead of saying what the other 20 students said previously.
In conclusion, I learned that in order to really catch the reader's attention, one must dig deeper into what they are writing on, rather than just looking at the surface and making typical responses.
As I read all the different discussion posts I found that there were a couple common strategies employed by the authors to try and incite discussion.
ReplyDeleteThe first method is the one used in the post titled "Facebook and Myspace." The author gives her audience a quote for some background and then throws out a single, open-ended question. This results in a number of varied responses as everyone chooses to approach the discussion from a different angle, but the responses encompass such a wide spectrum that it is less of a discussion and more of just a collection of different comments on the topic. I thought this was the least effective method of the three I picked out.
For an example of the second method I found, look to the discussion question titled "Hacktivism." Here the author uses a barrage of simple, non-open-ended, questions to get people thinking before ending with an open ended question about good and evil. I think that this is a fairly sound strategy to jump-start discussion, however it did lead to many of the responses becoming repetitive as they all answered the simpler introduction questions in a similar manner.
Finally, the third and best method that I saw used was employed in the discussion post titled "Gender Online." The author uses a combination of the other two methods by starting with a bit of background before posing a series of open-ended questions. His questions however, do not fall into the trap of being too broad as the discussion is much more focused than my first example because he uses the other questions to build off of his original one.
From looking at the different ways to approach creating a discussion post, I gathered that the optimum method to create discussion is to pose multiple questions, in an open-ended yet focused manner, so as to allow people to approach the topic from whatever perspective they so choose yet keeping everyone focused on the original discussion intended by the author. I thought that "Gender Online" was an excellent example of this.
In the blog “Thinking Critically about New Media”, I read through Cody W’s post in The panopticon and online “piracy” thread. I will say piracy online is getting worse and the panopticon is a way the government is trying to crack down on that illegal activity but to say “the internet has the possibility of becoming a prison” I think is quite the stretch.
ReplyDeleteCody’s opinion is on how the “outside” has the opportunity to view the illegal activities people perform on the Internet. He gives an example of how hiding your history on the local machine is easier than hiding it from the governments watchful eye. He also gives, what I think is, a good analogy of how he sees the panopticon as a “ominous watchtower looming over our shoulders” which gives you the feeling he thinks going on the internet is like stepping into prison.
Cody does refrain from giving any specific documented examples of how the panopticon system is actually suppose to work. He goes about relaying his opinion on how the government is trying to imprison America by not allowing them to perform illegal activities on the Internet obviously not realizing that the Internet was not initially invented to download music. He might have also forgotten that the government’s “iron fist” isn’t simply limited to people downloading music and movies illegally.
I have taken a few online/hybrid classes and in those classes I would have given Cody a B- at best. There doesn’t appear to be any direct links to Foucault’s discussion., and though he works in a lot of his own opinion that is all he gives. He doesn’t give any links to research that backs his opinion.
I chose to read the blog about Autism. The questions original premise asked students to reflect on Davidson's analysis and then back her analysis up with evidence from wrongplanet.net. After reading many of the posts I discovered that there were two major types of responses: the students who fully answered the question and those who did not.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, Andrea Y. quoted Davidson who is emphasizing that virtual communication is easier for those who have AS because it is "clear" and it "alleviates...anxiety." Then, Andrea Y. comments in her own words what Davidson is trying to convey. Following this, she then back's up Davidson's claim by providing an example, posted by someone with AS who states that "it's only with the internet that i can fully connect with people." Not only does Andrea Y. provide solid evidence, she also fully answers the question.
Another student, Jennifer P. does a very fine job of using evidence and integrating her quotes correctly but she does not fully answer the question correctly. For example, she provides a quote made by Davidson which holds that AS people will have an easier time speaking on the internet than in real life but then goes on to provide actual evidence which instead proves that those with AS have a problem understanding others. While both have to do with communication, her evidence does not prove her point fully but rather the opposite of the point she was trying to prove. Either she needed to choose another piece of evidence to back up Davidson's analysis or she needed to choose a different piece of Davidson's analysis.
In "Thinking Critically About New Media", I read the comments on "Gender Online". I have to agree with Karly Brinkman that the questions given too the commenters were to bland for the topic. Although, some of the comments were well thought out and interesting.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree that Julia's comment had caught my attention. I thought it was genius to bring up that the articles were written by both male and female. She made a good point about have the stereotypes of the typically family where men went to work and women take care of home could have translated over to society today leaving women a bit behind in this technological age. Also, her point that eventually the gap will be gone because children learn from their parents and as women become a major role in technology, girls will become more interested in computers and other tech devices. It was nice reading her post as it was a more in depth look at things because many others just repeated that same points.
One comment though showed very lack of thought and opinion. Laura S had the worst comment overall because she showed little opinion over the subject. Also, that bit of opinion did not even have information to back it up and did not relate back to the articles really. Laura says that a gap may be possible with some male dominated websites, but gives no info on what male sites or instances of this. Not to mention, she does not take a side on the subject, which I know is hard, but really hurts your credibility. The only positive note about this was that it was different than all the other comments I read.
Overall, I found this topic intriguing especially since I am going for a computer science major. I wish that the questions left more room for discussion to prevent the repetition of the comments because I enjoyed reading them.
From the blog "Thinking Critically About New Media," I chose to read "Gender Online." Many of the responses became repetitive as people continued to repeat the same thing the person before them said, basically that the gender gap online imitates the gender gap that exists offline. A major fault of the responses is that most people went for the obvious answer and just relied on quotes to express their beliefs just choosing to accept everything the authors said without much outside evidence.
ReplyDeleteThe responses that caught my interest were the ones that disagreed with the topic. Bloggers such as Vanessa, David W, and Josten addressed the issue from the other side saying that they did not see the gender gap that the authors spoke of. While it is important to express your true beliefs on the blog, a smart strategy seems to be to go against the flow and thus avoid repeating the opinion of everyone else. By disagreeing, these responses made it appear that the bloggers put more thought into the topic than others who just repeated information that they had read.
Well-structured posts also caught my eye. When responses were just one long paragraph they seemed unappealing without even having read them yet. By splitting the response into separate, organized paragraphs with each paragraph addressing one question of the topic, responses were much easier to read and comprehend. Length also applies to this, when a response is much shorter, like Laura S, it can not possibly have enough information in it to fully answer the question in a meaningful way. Of course this does not mean that people should simply type out a long response and assume that it is insightful but being longer does help.
Personally, the post that was most eye-catching was David S. He began by talking to the audience using the pronoun "you." By personally addressing the audience, he immediately formed a connection that the other bloggers hadn't and this made his post much more persuasive. He was not another of the many stating that "I believe", he broke out from the crowd by talking to "you" rather than telling you what he believes you should think.
I read the comments under the post "Gender Online" and noticed that many of the posts started out the same, and were generally repetitive. The only comments that caught my attention were the ones whose authors expressed what they believe to be true about the gender gap online, from their own experiences and opinions, rather than merely summarizing what they read prior. Also, some of the posts were too lengthy, and didn't come to a solid conclusion.
ReplyDeleteI decided to comment on the thread about filtering what you put on social networking sites. Everyone does this to an extent. In my experience I mainly keep my comments and pictures with friends decent because foul language and pictures of blowing hookah smoke out of my mouth doesn't portray a Christian lifestyle. What I post should genuinely reflect who I am, but when I have a second chance at what I say and can edit it, I feel the desire to put a lot of thought into what people see.
ReplyDeleteI see this all the time in similar ways and also in very different ways. A lot of people (including myself) post pictures and statement in order to attract attention, like girls who put pictures of themselves in bikinis. The only reason a girl would take a picture of their self alone, posing in front of a mirror, sporting their new Victoria's Secret purchase, or a guy that is shirtless flexing his muscles, is to attract attention and to hear how attractive they are.
I read the blog, “Gender Online.” Many students have already noticed and commented that many of the bloggers posts were very repetitive. As I read through many of the posts I too noticed how students often tried extending their posts. I felt like they didn’t really care if it was quite repetitive but mostly extended to maybe catch the reader’s attention and interest. I noticed people tried to extend their writing to make it seem like a well thought out post. Instead of keeping it simple they extended it making it very repetitive and most often they ended up contradicting themselves. I found one post that was a perfect example. Rebecca Archer had the right idea but in the end contradicted herself.
ReplyDeleteShe had the right idea in the beginning when she provided a quote from the author and gave reasons to why she agreed with the author. I had a problem with her reason to why she agreed in the first place. She explains that there is a gender gap because most of the technology designers are mostly men. She provides evidence by using two well-known men, Bill Gates, And Steve Jobs. It seems that she believes all technology designers are men because those two just so happen to be men. In her middle paragraph she also starts explaining how most women are clueless and not interested when it comes to technology. In her last paragraph she contradicts herself by saying that women are becoming more interested and the gender gap is decreasing.
In conclusion this comment stood out as a perfect example of how sometimes extending your writing could potentially affect your opinion. Her ability as a writer is good but by extending it she ended up contradicting herself. If she would have kept it short and simple it would be a perfect example of a strong response. I’m using this comment as an example for my future responses.
I chose to read "Gender Online," and I found a common theme among most of the posts. It all seemed very generalized, and most of the very lengthy answers contained long-winded thoughts that repeated what had been said in previous posts. I know it is possible that perhaps everyone could plainly agree upon a subject and therefore have nothing to add, but there's definitely nothing wrong with playing the devil's advocate in such a situation. For example, Vanessa's post is perhaps one of my favorites. She not only disagrees with the generally established sentiment, but she also goes into great detail to support her argument, with personal anecdotes and beliefs.
ReplyDeleteOn the complete opposite end, I cannot approve of a similar stance taken by Laura S. Her post is about half as long as Vanessa's, and I think just because you don't believe in the points established doesn't mean you should get away with saying nothing. In fact, I almost feel as though they are inclined to speak more about the subject at hand because they should be developing a stronger argument to compete with all of the others that had already been established. Laura's response seemed to "take the easy way out" because rather than giving support to her ideas, she just said she disagreed with the idea of a gender gap existing and left it at that. Laura's post is the perfect example of what not to do.
I also liked how most students included in text citations to support their ideas, but it was done in such a way that it was there only for support, and didn't form a bulk of their response. In addition, the post by Christine which included an outside resource (as well as the link to it) was both helpful and enlightening, and it definitely demonstrated her commitment to the discussion.
I read the blog post, "Hactivism" which immediately piqued my interest. I thought the questions included in the post were really thought provoking and it was something I had never sat down and had the time to really analyze so called "Hactivism".
ReplyDeleteI think this post was set up very nicely because it had so many questions and really gave the reader a lot to go on. It asked questions that provoked discussion on a topic that can vary in opinions. Many of the answers to this blog post started out as describing what they once thought of hacking. This was that it was inherently evil no matter which way you looked at it. However, after they looked at some counter examples they came to realize that not all hacking is necessarily morally wrong and that some of it can do a lot of good. You could actually see the students learning in their responses which were really nice to see.
This post was cool to see because you could just see minds being opened up and opinions changing right in front of you. I think that’s what made this blog post one of the top posts on that site. The questions were thought provoking and the responses were well thought out opinionated responses which made it easy to read.
At this point, my answers will probably be repititious of the rest of the class but here goes. I read the blog "Hactivism" like Cody and Victoria and I would agree that that general setup, the barrage of related open ended questions, is an effective way of spurring conversation. This technique gives the rest of the bloggers a few different but pertinent questions to answer and leads to longer discussion rather than short 1-2 sentence answers. By making them open-ended, the author allows for different views to be presented and upon reading others' posts, can potentially lead to further, more focused, 'arguments'.
ReplyDeleteOne other thing I noticed while browsing the blogs was the inclusion of in-text citations in the blog posts. I really liked seeing this because of the way it simulates an "in-class discussion" of a written work. It almost removes the technology barrier (our computers)instead seeming to draw us into an imaginary room where we, in a circle, are discussing a text. (At least for me). Also, having the in text citations is a good way of proving to the instructor that the student has actually read the text assigned.
To be be perfectly honest, while reading the posted threads and comments on these websites, I felt that some of the answers to the questions were kind of unnecessarily long. As a student, I know that reading these in depth comments is a helpful resource because of all of the useful opinions and imagery that I can obtain through the examples. As a human however, I get really intimidated by these 6 paragraphed essays that probably should have a bibliography and a few citations. So in my honest opinion, as a human, I would like to read those comments that are sweet and to the point, because I don't feel like reading somebodies autobiography in a comment. I'm just saying!
ReplyDeleteI chose to read "The panopticon and online "privacy"" under "Thinking Critically about New Media." While I can't necessarily say that I learned anything new about the hazards and potential threats that accompany online activites, I can say that the posts displayed on this page could be extremely informative to someone who had never been taught internet safety basics.
ReplyDeleteI find it ironic that we keep stating how repetitive these posts are and in turn, we too are sounding repetitive. With that said.... yes. A lot of what those posts stated were extremely repetitive. It seemed as if everyone thought that panopticon was "very interesting" and yet, I thought it to be extremely uninteresting by the way they would drag on about it. I was waiting for one loose-cannon to say something Different like "no, it wasn't interesting. It was boring, I hated it, and I vehemently deny its very existence. Here are my reasons why.." Of course that student would most likely have received a terrible grade but it probably would have been the most interesting post to read. Otherwise, it felt as if I were reading the same thing over and over which made it hard to focus and keep reading.
I did enjoy the fact that they made connections to George Orwell's 1984. I always seem to become more engaged in what I am reading when I see that someone was thinking exactly what I had been thinking.
Well, it certainly looks like the "Hacktivism" section was a popular choice. It appears that there were a few stock openings that the posters were recently introduced to. At least, there are two that immediately stand out, these being "(topic), to me, is..." and "the terms (topic), (topicism), (topic-ing) have a (type of connotation) connotation". Also, as others have stated, the posts are, well, repetitive. Also they use referring to each other as a kind of filler. It's an understandably convenient way to pad one's own post with easy content/ restating what one's already written. But what's most common throughout these posts is how much in common they have with each other. I understand there isn't that much leeway for new and unique lines of thought with the prompt provided, but I'm pretty sure I read maybe 3 actually unique posts, the rest seemed to be paraphrased versions of previous posts. Also it doesn't seem like many people did any outside research on the topic, but I guess that's ok.
ReplyDeleteI chose to read "The panopticon and online "privacy"" enlisted in the "Thinking Critically about New Media" section. The variation among writing styles and structure made it interesting to search for that one post that struck me as unique. Jennifer provided an organized post that addressed the main focal points while still being relatable. I personally think that one of the most difficult tasks is to write an informative essay or post that is personable to the reader. Her ability to maintain a cohesive existence between these two elements is why I found her post to be so effective.
ReplyDeleteJennifer establishes a strong relationship between the terms and their definitions while still maintaining structured syntax. Her use of simple diction made her more relatable and believable. I also think that this is part of why her post catches the reader’s attention immediately and draws them in. She provides insight into her personal experiences with the topic and how she feels about it in general. I like this because it is thought provoking and allows the opportunity for a more detailed class discussion on the topic. Perhaps the most prominent reason I found this post to be so effective is because it encourages more critical thought on the topic and does not simply provide an answer or solution to solve it.
I read a couple of the forum posts, and decided to comment on the "Thinking Critically about New Media" post. While skimming through this blog, one post caught my eye for a couple of different reasons; the post by Mirka H on December 10. Initially, the length of the post is what caught my eye, which isn't necessarily a good thing, but it grabbed my attention regardless. The first thing I noticed before even beginning to read the text was the structural organization that they incorporated into their writing, which was an immediate indication of a better developed and more composed response. They also answered the question systematically in a manner appropriate to the question: chronologically. Both of these organization tools indicated to me that this person knew what they wanted to say and how to say it, which helped me understand the content of the text. In terms of the actual writing, the flow of the sentences and their placement in the context of the paragraphs as a whole was smooth and understandable, which effectively communicated what the person had learned over the course of the semester. I also like that whenever they bring up a new idea such as what they didn't know before taking the course, they proceed to explain what the class helped them learn and provide specific examples from the readings to support their assertions. Each paragraph also has an individual purpose of explaining a new idea without being repetitive or superfluous, and is relatively concise. I recognize that this author is guilty of using the "complete sentence" formula complained about in earlier posts, and I understand that it may be an issue with other posts in the blog, but in this situation I did not feel at all inhibited or hindered from understanding or enjoying the post, and this aforementioned structure was less of a formula and more of an organizational aid. In all, the post is thorough without being repetitive, and concise enough to clearly communicate the author's idea without boring everyone else.
ReplyDeleteI like thinking critically and I like media, so i decided to use my valuable time reading the comments from Thinking Critically about New Media. The first thing that came to my attention as soon as i clicked on the blog and it directed me to the comments was the date when this discussion was posted December 4, 2009 that’s almost four years ago and in the comments allot people include their new understandings on New Media, now for four years later thats Old Media. What i’m trying to say is that this New Media these students were witness of has gradually evolved and keeps evolving each day as we get more new ideas in how to produce media and share it with the world; so how can we call it “New Media” if each day its going to be “new”, I say we call it “Media Evolution” as what it is doing every day of our lives’ evolving into something worse or better.
ReplyDeleteEnough of that now, it was just something i had in my head and i wanted to share with everyone. So while I was reading these comments I found a few to be very “numb” like when i wake up with a numb and dead arm, because i slept on top of it all night; It still works its just not as productive as a well and rested arm and these comments are similar to my numb arm they're just not that valuable when its not productive.
I want to point out Leenas’ comment of December 5, 2009, when she starts sharing with us she starts telling us, quote “I have realized that new media was defined, changed and expanded in my mind. I now have a much stronger understanding of what media is, of how it has changed, and of how it affects our lives.” I want to point out she repeats the word “Change”, yes the media has changed it changes every day, but Ms.Leena doesn’t explain or backs up what in media has changed; she leaves me with a empty stomach throughout her whole comment, I wasn’t satisfied and filled up with knowing what was the change in media.
Comments like Leenas per say, have no effect and productivity to us readers they just waste our valuable time with their “Numb Comments”. Yeah they wrote a comment on the blog and shared their views, but it wasn’t anything that will help the reader understand more of the topic. A valuable comment will be someone who writes a briefing of what they have learned and the result of what they have learned, not just the result and then not telling us what was what they learned like Leena. I’m not try to target Leena exactly but the group that she falls into, the “Numb Bloggers” i say.
Thanks. if you wasted your valuable time reading my thoughts.
When looking through these past blog posts, the last forum: ‘Activism Online (Gurak)’ caught my eye. In today’s society we are so focused on being plugged into society that we forget what actual activism is like. There were several comments from students that I found to be quite humorous. Dustin P., who commented on October 22, spoke of people’s inability to decipher fact from myth in the cyber world, and quick conclusions and gullibility for even the most minor things (such as ‘Mclovin’ attending the U of A). There are many credibility issues when dealing with the internet , so ‘online activism’ seems to me to be an oxymoron. I full heartedly agree with the term ‘slacktivists’, though Kristen Wilhem who commented on October 22 has a valid point that ‘activism is a positive thing in general’ whether it’s online or on site. The internet is just a massive vortex of information and has completely altered social relations.
ReplyDeleteAfter much debate, I chose to read through the comments on "The Panopticon and Online "Privacy" thread under "Thinking Critically about New Media." Let me start off by saying, I found it somewhat difficult to pass judgment on another student's comment, when I myself couldn't refer to the article under discussion. Regardless, I found each comment to be engaging and thought provoking in its own way. The comment left by Natasha H. grabbed my attention almost immediately, as I felt I would have responded in a similar fashion. Her literature and movie references related to the topic at hand perfectly, and gave her comment a more genuine feel. In my future posts, I plan on commenting in a similar manner.
ReplyDeleteI read: "Turkle: Video Games and Computer Holding Power." Basically, Turkle had a thesis that stated that computers/video games influence our lives and our perspectives. The question of the blog was: Do you agree or disagree with Turkle. The students had an hour of video gaming assigned to them, to use as support.
ReplyDeleteMost of the posts agreed because video games/computers provided different realities, some controllable and almost all with different values/standards, which can in turn influence one's perspective.
All of the good posts, were like any good essay. They stated a thesis, followed by conceptual support (a quote/statement), followed by specific examples (how those supporting details were true), which went to support the thesis.
Other good posts had some stylistic approaches to them, using the video game played as a metaphor within their post, again supporting the thesis.
This reminds me of my AP English Literate & Composition class. All the same basic rules/strategies apply for any sort of writing.
-Andrew Lee
I went on the post and read the comments about the panopticon and online "privacy". I feel that the best comments elaborated on their ideas rather than just stating their opinions. I think strong posts include prior knowledge, in addition to real life experience like when one girl said she's careful about her credit card information over the Internet. She prefers to use UA wifi over a public wifi. All in all, the type of comments I should make should catch the reader’s attention as well as make them agree with my stance.
ReplyDeleteI now know what Dr. Burgess was referring to when she said almost everyone had responded to the "Thinking Critically About New Media" blog. Initially, I can understand why everyone would comment on this blog, it is such a large part of our lives and thus easy to relate to, easy to write on.
ReplyDeleteFor myself, I read the "UA Writing Center Internship" blog, focusing more so on the "Learning Diversity" post. The blog seems to be set up for writing tutors in order to help them become better at assisting their students. The "Learning Diversity" post asks "How does rethinking disability as a different way of seeing the world change the way you think about learning diversity? How will looking at difference in this way translate into the way you approach a tutoring session?" One response, by Adam, I particularly enjoyed.
Adam's response to the prompt gave both a relation to his own life's experiences as well as answered the question. I recognize Adam's connection from the prompt to his life's experiences as a strength. I believe being able to relate to a prompt or question allows one to understand and identify more clearly with the given discussion. When we understand in a greater means, we then can convey our ideas more accurately.
The more straight forward of the two strengths of Adam's comment was his answering of the question. It is so easy to get caught in our initial reaction to a discussion question that we never actually provide our direct response. Adam's reply to the question display's his placement of how a new view of learning disabilities changes the way he thinks about learning diversity; "..unless a student comes out at the beginning of the session and tells me that he/she has a disability, I don't think I'd treat them differently from any other student."
Ultimately it was a pleasure reading the discussion question and creating my own opinion on the issue; it was also a joy to read the responses of all the tutors and viewing their thoughts on the prompt.