Chvonne's Reading and Thinking Notes 9/16
Kalantzis, Mary and Bill Cope. “Learning for Work.” New Learning: Elements of a Science Education. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. 84-109. Print
Chapter 3 of Kalantzis and Cope reminded me of how cynical and pessimistic I am. The chapter summarizes the three ways that work has been organized: ‘Fordism’, ‘post-Fordism’, and ‘productive diversity.’ Each way of organizing work was examined via the following dimensions: technology, management, workers’ education and skills, and markets and society. Within each way of organizing work there were significant shifts. The authors identified the education model most compatible with each way of organizing work. The authors noted the changes within each era. However, I saw each as a more technologically advanced way to exploit and exclude specific segments of the population. The authors noted that no mater the era that “[p]atterns of exclusion remain endemic” (104). It seems that the current education model is geared toward a combination of Fordism and post-Fordism. The system still sorts the educated elite from the rest; however, there is a move toward student-centered classrooms and teaching students collaboration and teamwork. Fordism immediately made me think of for-profit educational institutions. The authors present: “The state determined the syllabus; the teachers led their students through the textbooks; and the students were assessed against the correct answers, which had been centrally determined by the educational bosses” (89). This sentence describes every for-profit school I ever worked for. I had little to no ethos as an instructor. I could not teach anything that was apart of the syllabus. If a student fell behind, I could not slow things down or provide any accommodations to asset them in catching up. Post-Fordism reminded me of most large corporations today; massive brainwashing. I think of Starbucks calling their employees partners rather than employees.Am I a partner, if I’m being paid minimum wage? This is surface level empowerment. Productive diversity makes me think of Apple. They revolutionized the niche market. No one knew that they wanted or need an iPod. Then they convinced people that they needed both a laptop and a tablet. I think Apple also epitomizes value residing in intangibles (brand, product design, reputation, and customer loyalty) The iPhone 6 is a perfect example. Many of the features of iPhone 6 are already in/on most Android Phones (especially the Samsung Galaxy 4 and 5). Apple is advertising “as new” features that were standard in Android phones in 2012. Loyal customers do not care because there is a big difference between an Android Phone and an Apple phone: one is an Apple product and one isn’t. New Learning makes me a little less pessimistic because it leaves room for educators and students to be critical of the learning model. It leaves space to “create conditions of critical understanding of work and power” (105). Without this push, New Learning would simply gloss over and perpetuate un-even development.
Helms-Park, Rena and Paul Stapleton. “How the views of faculty can inform undergraduate Web-based research: Implications for academic writing.” Computers and Composition, 23 (2006): 444-461. Print.
The authors conducted a study in which they examined the criteria that faculty use to assess students’ web sources. The authors noted that there has been an increase in the use of web sources, which has been accompanied by growing concerns about whether these source are appropriate for academic writing. There are set criteria to evaluate print sources, but there are not a set of criteria to evaluate web sources. The authors hope to identify criteria based on the faculty survey. The authors noted “academic writing has not yet fully come to grips with the new multimedia definitions of literacy” (446). Literacy is more fluid, yet much of academic writing still focuses on print literacy. The faculty survey identified 4 criteria for evaluating websites, which were favored by faculty. The criteria are: “academic rigor of the site”, “reputation of the author or organization sponsoring the Web site”, “clear indication of who had written the text”, and “objectivity and reliability of the sties’ contents” (449). The faculty survey also showed that faculty privilege library sources over web sources. Library sources are seen as being more reliable and objective. Faculty are “wary of the Web’s unregulated nature and its irregularities” (450). However, faculty do not feel that print sources are that much more acceptable than web sources. The authors present that the faculty were wary of web sources due to the “dubious sources themselves” (451). They were also felt that the ease of navigating the web also impacted the research process. I thought it was interesting that “accessibility and ease of use were most students’ primary reasons for using Web sources” (451). To me, this shows that more work is needed to teach students about navigating library search engines and databases. Also, there seems to be a need for usability testing of library search engines and databases. As most databases are proprietary, streamlining is probably not possible; however, collaboration between instructors, students, and the database providers could help to make them more user-friendly.
This article, like the one below, both helped me to see that I am taking many things for granted. The things presented here seem common sense to me. I’m not sure if that is due to the age of the articles. I always ask my students whether they would prefer a cake baked in the microwave or the oven? The microwave is the Internet, and the oven is libraries/databases. I know that this shows that I privilege traditional sources over web sources. However, I am sure to tell students that sometimes, you have to use the microwave for things. Somethings cannot go in the oven. We try to think about source use rhetorically. I do not know if this method is effective or not. I have not had any disastrous research papers, so I figure: so far, so good. I think this article and Silva’s help to emphasize the need for faculty (not students) to have multiliteracy training. It should be a part of teacher preparation. We cannot provide or teach students things that we do not understand ourselves. I’m not saying that faculty lack research abilities/skills. It is obvious that many of us are not using newer sources in our work, so training maybe needed to fill the gap.
Silva, Mary Lourdes. “Can I Google That?: Research Strategies for Undergraduate Students.” The New Digital Scholar: Exploring and Enriching the Research and Writing Practices of NextGen Students. Ed. Randall McClure and James P. Purdy. Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2013. 161-184. Print.
Silva’s chapter in The New Digital Scholar addressed concerns that I have had about teaching research in Freshman composition. I used to argue that we should not teach the research paper or any research at all in Freshman comp because there wasn’t enough time to do it adequately. It seems that writing programs, specifically freshman composition, has been charged with teaching writing and research (digital literacy skills). In this chapter, Silva does a study in which she examines students navigational and information literacies over an academic quarter in which they were to write a research paper. The chapter aims to evaluate the effectiveness of “intervention that draws on research traditions form both IL and writing studies” (163). Silva presents that “both writing and IL are social, cognitive, rhetorical, technological, and situated processes of using language, tools, systems, artifacts, and people to construct knowledge, and participate in communities of practice” (162). This shows that writing and IL are associated and impact one another. So far, we have utilized, what Silva identified as, a “one size fits all IL curriculum.” (162). However, this is not effective because it assumes that all students approach and utilizes database the same. Moreover, it “does not address the technological idiosyncrasies of databases” (162). Prior to reading Silva’s article, I knew of the concept multiliteracies, but I had never defined or noted the individual literacies. Silva identifies five literacies: informational literacy, writing literacy, technological literacy, digital reading literacy, and navigational literacy. Silva utilized a “multiliteracies instructional package” 166). She examined the students IL and navigational literacies before and after training. Based on this examination, Silva concluded that students need assistance and guidance throughout the entire research process, specifically with keywords and evaluation criteria. It is also important for instructors to point out the limitations of library databases, which students assume are ‘perfect.’
After reading this chapter, I was glad to find out more about multiliteracies and mining references. The latter, I never considered using with undergraduates although I use this method when doing research. On the other hand, I thought much of the information in the article was common sense. For example, most students are accustomed to using Internet search engines, which are not very keyword sensitive. I usually help students craft keywords because of this. This is useful in that it provides specific examples from students. It is always helpful to see things from the student perspective. I still think that a major issue with teaching multiliteracies, specifically informational literacy and research skills, is that the weight of this responsibility is placed in one department (English).
Chapter 3 of Kalantzis and Cope reminded me of how cynical and pessimistic I am. The chapter summarizes the three ways that work has been organized: ‘Fordism’, ‘post-Fordism’, and ‘productive diversity.’ Each way of organizing work was examined via the following dimensions: technology, management, workers’ education and skills, and markets and society. Within each way of organizing work there were significant shifts. The authors identified the education model most compatible with each way of organizing work. The authors noted the changes within each era. However, I saw each as a more technologically advanced way to exploit and exclude specific segments of the population. The authors noted that no mater the era that “[p]atterns of exclusion remain endemic” (104). It seems that the current education model is geared toward a combination of Fordism and post-Fordism. The system still sorts the educated elite from the rest; however, there is a move toward student-centered classrooms and teaching students collaboration and teamwork. Fordism immediately made me think of for-profit educational institutions. The authors present: “The state determined the syllabus; the teachers led their students through the textbooks; and the students were assessed against the correct answers, which had been centrally determined by the educational bosses” (89). This sentence describes every for-profit school I ever worked for. I had little to no ethos as an instructor. I could not teach anything that was apart of the syllabus. If a student fell behind, I could not slow things down or provide any accommodations to asset them in catching up. Post-Fordism reminded me of most large corporations today; massive brainwashing. I think of Starbucks calling their employees partners rather than employees.
Helms-Park, Rena and Paul Stapleton. “How the views of faculty can inform undergraduate Web-based research: Implications for academic writing.” Computers and Composition, 23 (2006): 444-461. Print.
The authors conducted a study in which they examined the criteria that faculty use to assess students’ web sources. The authors noted that there has been an increase in the use of web sources, which has been accompanied by growing concerns about whether these source are appropriate for academic writing. There are set criteria to evaluate print sources, but there are not a set of criteria to evaluate web sources. The authors hope to identify criteria based on the faculty survey. The authors noted “academic writing has not yet fully come to grips with the new multimedia definitions of literacy” (446). Literacy is more fluid, yet much of academic writing still focuses on print literacy. The faculty survey identified 4 criteria for evaluating websites, which were favored by faculty. The criteria are: “academic rigor of the site”, “reputation of the author or organization sponsoring the Web site”, “clear indication of who had written the text”, and “objectivity and reliability of the sties’ contents” (449). The faculty survey also showed that faculty privilege library sources over web sources. Library sources are seen as being more reliable and objective. Faculty are “wary of the Web’s unregulated nature and its irregularities” (450). However, faculty do not feel that print sources are that much more acceptable than web sources. The authors present that the faculty were wary of web sources due to the “dubious sources themselves” (451). They were also felt that the ease of navigating the web also impacted the research process. I thought it was interesting that “accessibility and ease of use were most students’ primary reasons for using Web sources” (451). To me, this shows that more work is needed to teach students about navigating library search engines and databases. Also, there seems to be a need for usability testing of library search engines and databases. As most databases are proprietary, streamlining is probably not possible; however, collaboration between instructors, students, and the database providers could help to make them more user-friendly.
This article, like the one below, both helped me to see that I am taking many things for granted. The things presented here seem common sense to me. I’m not sure if that is due to the age of the articles. I always ask my students whether they would prefer a cake baked in the microwave or the oven? The microwave is the Internet, and the oven is libraries/databases. I know that this shows that I privilege traditional sources over web sources. However, I am sure to tell students that sometimes, you have to use the microwave for things. Somethings cannot go in the oven. We try to think about source use rhetorically. I do not know if this method is effective or not. I have not had any disastrous research papers, so I figure: so far, so good. I think this article and Silva’s help to emphasize the need for faculty (not students) to have multiliteracy training. It should be a part of teacher preparation. We cannot provide or teach students things that we do not understand ourselves. I’m not saying that faculty lack research abilities/skills. It is obvious that many of us are not using newer sources in our work, so training maybe needed to fill the gap.
Silva’s chapter in The New Digital Scholar addressed concerns that I have had about teaching research in Freshman composition. I used to argue that we should not teach the research paper or any research at all in Freshman comp because there wasn’t enough time to do it adequately. It seems that writing programs, specifically freshman composition, has been charged with teaching writing and research (digital literacy skills). In this chapter, Silva does a study in which she examines students navigational and information literacies over an academic quarter in which they were to write a research paper. The chapter aims to evaluate the effectiveness of “intervention that draws on research traditions form both IL and writing studies” (163). Silva presents that “both writing and IL are social, cognitive, rhetorical, technological, and situated processes of using language, tools, systems, artifacts, and people to construct knowledge, and participate in communities of practice” (162). This shows that writing and IL are associated and impact one another. So far, we have utilized, what Silva identified as, a “one size fits all IL curriculum.” (162). However, this is not effective because it assumes that all students approach and utilizes database the same. Moreover, it “does not address the technological idiosyncrasies of databases” (162). Prior to reading Silva’s article, I knew of the concept multiliteracies, but I had never defined or noted the individual literacies. Silva identifies five literacies: informational literacy, writing literacy, technological literacy, digital reading literacy, and navigational literacy. Silva utilized a “multiliteracies instructional package” 166). She examined the students IL and navigational literacies before and after training. Based on this examination, Silva concluded that students need assistance and guidance throughout the entire research process, specifically with keywords and evaluation criteria. It is also important for instructors to point out the limitations of library databases, which students assume are ‘perfect.’
After reading this chapter, I was glad to find out more about multiliteracies and mining references. The latter, I never considered using with undergraduates although I use this method when doing research. On the other hand, I thought much of the information in the article was common sense. For example, most students are accustomed to using Internet search engines, which are not very keyword sensitive. I usually help students craft keywords because of this. This is useful in that it provides specific examples from students. It is always helpful to see things from the student perspective. I still think that a major issue with teaching multiliteracies, specifically informational literacy and research skills, is that the weight of this responsibility is placed in one department (English).
| Previous page on path | Chvonne Parker Bio, page 6 of 24 | Next page on path |
Discussion of "Chvonne's Reading and Thinking Notes 9/16"
"common sense"
Yes, many of the ideas are things that you have probably already thought about and addressed. However, did this help you think about them more systematically? Did it give you a theoretical or scholarly reason doing what you are doing?Posted on 25 September 2014, 5:55 am by Shelley Rodrigo | Permalink
Add your voice to this discussion.
Checking your signed in status ...