Post 10: Reflection

Overall, this course has given me a greater perspective on the power of language and composition. I also feel I have a greater understanding of the elements necessary for effective composition. I still don’t think I can pigeon hole myself into the objective view, or the subjective view, or the rhetorical view, but luckily this isn’t the point. The point is to consider the possibilities. The point is to be able to defend methods of teaching that value multiple perspectives. The point is finding some way to give students a reason to care about composition. I think if we can find a way to illustrate the overall effect that composition has had on our world, and more importantly, demonstrate the smaller more personal ways that our students’ composition can affect their own world, then we may be able to inspire a few students to work a little harder.

Not only do I like that we are learning how to demonstrate the power of language, but I like the ideal behind the power. I think negotiation is undervalued and worthy of being emphasized in the classroom. The idea that through the power of language we negotiate our world gives power and places emphasis on the word “negotiation.” In a world full of “inherently selfish” beings (still don’t know if I believe this but there are plenty of examples in our world), it is nice to think of students learning the value of negotiation.

This class also encouraged me to get a little more up to date on technology. I felt fairly confident in my technological capabilities, but this class reminded me of the pace at which technology grows. It also reminded me of my times as a student with teachers who made some effort to keep up, but they were still more comfortable with their archaic formats. Whether these formats worked or not in their time is not really important; what is important is the fact that they lost the engagement of their students who had moved on to different more progressive, though debatably better means of learning.

Post 9: Technology and ethics

I agree with Rice’s claim that we should let the pedagogy guide our technology. Our experience in the MOO was a perfect example of the reverse idea, letting technology drive the pedagogy. If we come in with a plan to actually teach our students within the technological environment, it can be successful. I would like to think that the classroom will never become solely technological, but I fear it is very possible due to the convenience and cost friendly possibilities. Therefore, we should try to get prepared to deal with some technological issues. We all kind of laugh at the idea that books could become extinct in our lifetime, but I think it is a very legitimate possibility. Look at how many people actually went to the library to search through the stacks to find an article for their report. I think there has been one person so far. It is a reality that the convenience of technology is lessening the importance of print media. Sure, we all printed out our articles to read them, but convenience won out over that old favorite, the book.

So we need to learn how to use this technology ethically and teach these ethics to our students. I don’t think this process will be too much different than the ways we have dealt with ethically treating print media. For as long as I have been in school it has been drilled into my head to consider the source of the information. We are encouraged to find articles written by experts, and reviewed by experts. This same thought process can apply to electronic media. In terms of education, and not culture, we can address the issue with a little micromanagement. We can encourage certain sources and exclude others. Whether technology is having a negative impact on the world is an issue larger than education. One can make a convincing argument about how television has reduced society. We can talk about the negative effects of too much television, but people love television. I’m a little bit cynical about how much we can do as teachers to truly change the impact technology has on society.