Analytic Reflection

Throughout this course, the tasks I have been assigned and asked to complete have, to be quite honest, been extremely confusing and difficult for me to understand.  Initially, I had trouble finding connections between the spheres we were working within and the overarching concepts of the course itself.  I am proud and relieved to inform that this final project has proven to be the glue that holds the previous assignments, blogs, and discussions together and has helped provide context for our critical texts.

Writing, as I have come to discover, is a collaborative effort.  Even when there is only one author, there are other entities involved.  Discourse refers to a community of voices—an invitation for other ideas and opinions to join the conversation.    By posting our Wikipedia page, our class, as well as the individual students, is joining the public discourse community and the conversation(s) it holds.

James McDonald’s “I Agree, But…” was the critical text I personally dissected for this project.   As I examined the definition and examples of public deliberation that McDonald provided, I could see it being put to practice all around me.  The different groups in class were all invited to join the conversation.  Each group had different levels of expertise and research backgrounds.  Even though the groups were all assigned different sections, the sections had to correlate with each other in order to form a cohesive Wikipedia article that did not contain repeated information, misinformation, or holes in the information.  The groups were not required to argue for a “right” answer, but rather use each other’s information to discover new answers and knowledge.

The whole idea of posting to Wikipedia and putting ourselves, as authors, in the position to be seen, critiqued, and edited by the discourse community and wiki editors relates back to Corbett and Eberly’s “Citizen’s Critic”.  Once published, our article is up for all to see and do with what they may.  The readers and editors outside of our class (as we are the original authors) can and will act as citizen critics as they navigate the article, add missing information, discuss our discoveries, and make their own changes.  Additionally, many of the “Diversions of Reasoning” that their essay lists were used as guidelines for us as we composed the article. Something that my group specifically worked hard to avoid was favoring one idea and adding bias to our post.  We made sure to use support from our texts to back up our discoveries.  “…before we give our assent to a conclusion, we must be satisfied that the claims that led us to that conclusion are true and that the reasoning is valid” Corbett, Eberly 135-136).

Undoubtedly, this assignment relied heavily on intertextuality both as we completed it and now as it stands in its “complete” form.  (I use “complete” loosely, as the article’s rhetorical velocity allows for change and movement, thus we never know if/when it will ever be complete.)  One can see how this is true just by looking at the “references” at the bottom—so many different sources were combined and dissected in order to come to the discoveries and conclusions made in the page.  Further, many sections of the page include direct links to other pages which then themselves have links to even further pages.  “The term intertextuality was coined by Julia Kristeva…defines intertextuality as ‘the transposition of one (or several) sign system(s) into another’” (60) (D’Angelo 33).

 

Corbett, Edward P.M., and Rosa A. Eberly. “Becoming a Citizen Critic: Where Rhetoric Meets the Road.” In The Elements of Reasoning, 2nd Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000. 121-36. Print.

D’Angelo, Frank. “The Rhetoric of Intertextuality.” Rhetoric Review 29.1 (Dec. 2009): 31-47. JSTOR.

McDonald, James. “I Agree, but … : Finding Alternatives to Controversial Projects through Public Deliberation.” Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation. Ed. Christian Kock and Lisa S.          Villadsen. University Park: Pennsylvania State UP, 2012. 119-217. Print.

Zittrain, Jonathan. “The Lessons of Wikipedia.” The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2008. 127-48. Print.

Getting to Know Henry Sidgwick

The Wikipedia biography is shorter in length.  The information given is supported by blue hyperlinks which lead to further sources and research.  It is broken into categories: introduction, biography, Eusapia Palladino, Works, Bibliography (broken down into sections “by Sedgwick” and “about Sedgwick”), See Also, References, and External Links. 

While the Wikipedia article was written as a list or collection of facts, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article is written with more narrative components.  Full sentences were used to explain Sidgwick’s life and work, and there were not links constantly interrupting the text.  This article is also much longer than the page on Wikipedia, for the paragraphs use proper grammar and much attention to detail.

The information in the Wikipedia article is very focused on Sedgwick and the events he was personally involved in or affected by.  Overall, there are few details and the descriptions are brief.  The biography includes information about his parents and childhood, his education, adulthood, accolades, his wife, and his burial location.  Then the Eusapia Palladino incident is explained, including how Sidgwick was involved.    

The links used in the Wikipedia page send readers to pages mentioned: the college Sidgwick founded, the associations of which he was a member, definitions of concepts, and even other people’s biographical information.  The links were all to other Wikipedia pages.  The list in the “References” section on Wikipedia includes thirteen sources.  Many of the references are journals.  The list also includes databases and books.  Some of Sedgwick’s work was also listed.  On Wikipedia, a couple of photos are used and captioned with links that lead to other Wikipedia pages.  The Stanford Encyclopedia article does not include images.

Wikipedia has a reputation of sometimes not reporting truthful information.  Authors and editors can make changes to the articles at basically any point in time.  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a specialized source that focuses on philosophy and philosophers.  For this reason, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a more credible source when it comes to researching topics pertaining to philosophy.

If I were looking for information on Henry Sidgwick, I would start with checking Wikipedia.  The information is presented in a quickly accessible way and linked to further reading if so desired.  When it comes to extensive research, I would continue with the Encyclopedia because the page gives more thorough information and lists sources and links that are not to other Wikipedia pages.

Wikipedia Knows Standards

Knowledge is whatever is known.  Whether it is true or not, if it is presented as information, it is stored as knowledge.  Gates references a stanza of a Jowett piece: “What I know not, is not knowledge.”  Information that is not shared or interpreted remains unknown.

The internet has become one of the fastest and most accessible ways to acquire knowledge.  Question after question is typed into toolbars on various media devices, and one of the first sources to pop up is Wikipedia.   Information presented on Wikipedia pages may or may not always be the most accurate or truthful, but if that is the only information one is presented with, that becomes their knowledge.  Because of Wikipedia’s popularity, accessibility, and immediacy, it is important that as much factual information is published and that the inaccuracy is kept to a minimum.

Wikipedia accepts information from non-staff members, making the site itself a public platform to share and access knowledge.  Though Wikipedia urges submitters to publish factual truths and knowledge, it goes without saying that not all people tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  For this reason, Wikipedia’s administration and editors have access to every page and are able to edit or change any published submissions.  Wikipedia is often not considered a reliable source for research and knowledge; however, many of us use it as a “jumping off point.”  For example, if there is a term, person, or event I am unfamiliar with, I may use Wikipedia to get a general and shallow understanding in order to familiarize myself.  After gaining a certain level of familiarity, I look to more specialized sources written by experts of the subject.

In Zittrain’s article, Wikipedia etiquette is discussed as standards and rules, holding separate meanings, are explained.  “Standards allow people to tailor their actions to a particular situation" (Zittrain 128) while "rules are less subject to ambiguity, and if crafted well, inform people exactly what they can do, even if individual situations render the rule impractical, or worse, dangerous " (Zittrain 128).  Breaking rules and ignoring standards both come with consequences: while rule breaking is usually followed by punishment, not meeting standards usually leads to some sort of improvement or correction.

Hood’s contrasting screenshots are examples Wikipedia’s standards.  The ‘before’ shot included foul language, misuse of words, and offensive inaccuracies.  The ‘after’ shot was taken after Wikipedia’s editors refined the language and included factual information.

Rainy Day Class Discussion

1.

Lazere defines primary certitude as a “psychological term for the mindset of people who are fixed in absolute beliefs so dogmatically, without recognizing their own bias, that they cannot bear to have their beliefs questioned or doubted” (Lazere 126).  This term is exemplified in Bouie’s Criminal Justice Racism article through the study he discusses.  In the study, the participants are given skewed statistics which support racism and prejudice.  Dunn, a character from the article, ended up shooting and killing a black man because he felt threatened and was made a “victim.”  His own thinking led to his actions.

Partisan viewpoint was also exemplified.  Similarly, it is a perspective that sides with others.  Since the participants in the aforementioned study which Bouie wrote about were given faulty statistics, their viewpoints were shifted towards the viewpoints of the people conduction the study and manipulating the participants.

2.
     I think, after reading Corbett and Eberly, that one’s success in writing or arguing in the public can only be achieved by knowing and understanding and acknowledging one’s audience.  The beginning of their chapter when they show two contrasting letters to the editor was a huge eye-opener for me as far as this unit.  They explain that the author of the first letter wrote with hope.  Rather than listing her grievances, she asked that her issue be resolved in a timely fashion.  She did not ‘tear down’ any institution or individual.  The second letter is written without hope.  The author complains and writes nasty things to his audience.  His letter ends up focusing on his own personal views rather than resolving the initial issue/complaint.

     McDonald emphasized the point that it is not about tearing an opponent’s argument down in order to prove your point’s “rightness,” but rather to understand both viewpoints and finding a way to learn from each other.  The first author in C/E’s chapter does that.  She writes to her opponent explaining her side and leaves room for their explanation.  Author number two leaves no room for learning.

 

Editing "How Liberals Behave the Way They Do"

First off, I apologize for not including the editing graphics (comment boxes, strike-throughs, etc.).  I did not catch that part of the assignment until I had already finished editing and found it counterproductive to go back just to insert them.  I also did not feel that there was an overwhelming amount of commentary needed or grammatical errors to correct using those tools.

There was, though, a lot of restructuring that I felt needed to be done.  In the original text, claims were made, but the evidence and support did not show up until four paragraphs later.  Since the piece was already set up in short paragraphs pertaining to topic, it was fairly easy to rearrange them into the proper, flowing order.  For example, I placed most of the information and research on Le Bon in the same section of the text rather than scattered throughout as it had been before.  Also, the author initially stated that Democrats ignored the mathematical facts, but those facts were not found until much later on the page.  It made more sense to me as a reader to put the facts first.

The new order not only made sense, but strengthened the arguments and claims made by the author.  By providing support right away, the claims were not just left floating and waiting for further explanation.

A few commas were moved around, but other than that, the punctuation did not require too much attention.  I changed “effected” to “affected” because it was supposed to act as a verb in the context of the piece.

I found it difficult to edit this piece without seeing it in its original form.  I searched using the provided link, but the site said the page could not be found.  Personally I do not keep up with politics, so I did not know whether some words were specific movements or acts that needed capitalization (proper nouns) and other politics-specific details.

-erp

 

Out in Public

McDonald references Govier when he explains that “the aim of public deliberation … need not be to consolidate different points of view but rather to learn, understand, and test a party’s beliefs about an issue by juxtaposing them with those of an opposing party” (McDonald, 200).  McDonald claims that democratic societies get great use out of public deliberations; “solutions that were unthinkable at the beginning of a controversy may eventually be considered and privileged by all parties (McDonald, 200).  Giving ‘the public’ space and opportunities to speak their mind and share their views on a subject may bring to the surface solutions that leaders had never even considered.

He introduces sociotechnical controversies, which pertain to society, science, and technology.  When these sociotechnical controversies arise, sociologists, scientists, and techies are not the only ones invited to deliberate.  ‘The public,’ though they do not share an expertise or vast knowledge of the subjects, are involved in the conversation.  “Deliberation forums over these controversies…allow experts to discuss social issues with ordinary citizens” (McDonald, 201).  Basically, where ever you sit on the “expert” spectrum, you are going to be exposed to new thoughts and ideas—and probably learn something—by participating in these public discussions.  “The deliberation exposes both experts and citizens to solutions they may have overlooked” (McDonald, 201).  After defining and explaining several uses of public deliberation, McDonald puts it into practice.  He turns to a specific case in which public deliberation was effective: the case of “Le Suroit.” 

Kaufer focuses on the practice, process, and teaching of writing public policy.  In his informative and instructional essay, he breaks down his pedagogy: the first stage is discussing generic sources of policy conflicts while the second stage focuses on steps for providing concrete plans for trying to resolve these conflicts.

According to Kaufer’s explanation, the conflict that McDonald shares in his essay (Le Suroit) should have sources (as in, what caused the conflict; where/how did it arise?) and should be argued from a specific level (1-5).  The sources include environmental and consumer protection groups, unions, independent experts, politicians, professors and ordinary citizens who believed that there were better options than one that will result in raising Quebec’s greenhouse emissions by 2.8% a year.  In this situation, they are not so much arguing against each other (like Kaufer’s example of two people arguing about a nice, big car), but rather looking for an alternative solution.  They share the evidence and have full understanding of the sense and frame of reference.  While HQ may be arguing for their solution, which they anticipate will lead to economic gains (local), the public is more concerned with the consequences of the environment on a more global scale.  Kaufer would agree that this is a level 5 conflict.  “Level 5 conflicts cannot be resolved directly” (Kaufer, 59).  Further reading on the case McDonlad shares, one can pick out elements from Kaufer’s steps for solving conflicts.

-erp

Time to Hand it Over to the Keyboard?

My 11-year-old cousin got a laptop on his first day of 6^th grade.  My initial reaction: why does a 6^th grader need a laptop?  I didn’t get my first netbook until I was 16 and traveling to the Middle East for the summer—my first full-sized laptop when I graduated high school and started college!  Why in the world did my aunt and uncle feel the need to indulge their only son with his own personal computer before he was even a teenager?

Apparently, I was not the only one surprised and somewhat offended by this seemingly premature purchase.  I overheard my grandmother on the phone asking, “What the hell does the boy need that for?  You’d better watch him closely!”  Defending her parenting decision, my aunt explained that my cousin’s middle school had updated its curriculums and facilities to all technology.  Chalkboards, once replaced by white boards, had again been replaced by Smart Board projectors.  Rather than individual desks in each classroom, there were lab tables with large computer monitors at which groups of students do their lessons.  Textbooks were no longer provided in hard-copies, rather the students were given codes to access them online or even download them for more permanent access.

Many adults today may argue that handwriting is the most effective means of memorizing, understanding, and retaining information; after all, that’s how they were taught and they’ve turned out just fine.  However, there has been a rapid shift in technology including writing and text technology.  Nowadays, students of all ages are encouraged by their school teachers to take notes, complete assignments, and even solve arithmetic equations using a screen and keyboard.  Though it cannot be denied that learning to access and express information through typing on a keyboard is crucial in today’s digital age, we have to wonder if this shift is benefiting students or acting as a detriment their education.

 

Pam A. Mueller and Daniel M. Oppenheimer conducted three studies which were published by Psychological Science last April.  Their goal was to prove that students perform better using handwritten note taking than they do with typing class notes on a laptop keyboard.

·         The first study required 67 students.  In shifts, the students were seated in classrooms with TED Talks lectures projected on a screen and told to take notes using their preferred method (either with pen and paper or on a laptop that had been disconnected from the internet).  Next they were taken to labs where they performed 2 distractor-tasks and a memory task.  Last, the students were asked factual questions related to the lectures they’d seen about 30-minutes before.  According to their scoring system, there was no significant interaction between lecture and note-taking medium.

·         The second study had students assigned to either hand-written note-taking or laptop note-taking.  They watched the same lecture.   The students using laptops were instructed not type information as they heard it, but rather in their own words.  Just like in study 1, they were given activities to complete to act as distractors.  Then they participated in the same test.  The final result for this study concluded that it was not the note-taking method that significantly affected the participants’ scores, but the amount of notes they had taken.  Those who wrote more notes received higher grades on the assessment.

·         The third and final study proceeded as follows: a graduate student gave a lecture to the participating students.  They were given either a laptop or pen and paper and were instructed to take notes on the lectures. They were told they would be returning the following week to be tested on the material. Each participant viewed all four lectures on individual monitors while wearing headphones.  When they returned, some students were given a 10-minute study opportunity while the others took the test immediately.  “There were no main effects of note-taking medium or opportunity to study. However, there was a significant interaction between…participants who took longhand notes and were able to study them performed significantly better than participants in any of the other conditions” (Mueller, Oppenheimer 6).

In their publication, Mueller and Oppenheimer acknowledge that just because notes are handwritten does not automatically improve students’ retention, and ultimately their grades.  They did, however, notice that students who took more notes performed better.  “Although more notes are beneficial, at least to a point, if the notes are taken indiscriminately or by mindlessly transcribing content, as is more likely the case on a laptop than when notes are taken longhand, the benefit disappears” (Mueller, Oppenheimer 8).

Mueller and Oppenheimer are not the only ones to question the benefits (or lack thereof) of computers in the classrooms.  College Professor John Fons eliminated paper from his course altogether.  In “A Year without Paper: Tablet Computers in the Classroom” he writes: “a few students commented that they were able to focus more on what was said rather than ‘frantically writing material down.’  A large majority of students must share that sentiment, as 80% agreed to the statement, ‘Having lecture notes broadcasted allowed me to pay greater attention to what was said.’  Two students indicated however that they ‘learned best while writing their own notes’ and took to copying lecture notes with paper and pencil toward the end of the semester.  Interestingly, those students also chose to continue receiving my lecture notes digitally” (Fons 482).

Whether or not typing is beneficial in a learning environment, it is an inescapable phenomenon in today’s digital era.  In general, the reliance on penmanship has decreased.  Children are not even being taught cursive in grade school.  People of all ages—parents, 6^th graders, and college students are faced with every-day tasks that are now performed using some sort of keyboard or typing mechanism.  Restaurants allow you to order food online, classes are found and scheduled using screens and keyboards, and even booking appointments are done through webpages.  Due to the reliance on typing and computer literacy as a whole, it is important that it be taught in schools.

 

Fons, John. "A Year Without Paper: Tablet Computers in the Classroom." The Physics Teacher 48 (2010): 481-83. Print.

Mueller, Pam A., and David M. Oppenheimer. "The Pen Is Mightier than the Keyboard: The Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking." Psychological Science 23 Apr. 2014: 1-10. Print.

When Reading Does Not Come NATURALLY

“READ NATURALLY, Scientific Research, and Read First” is a White Paper written by Marcia R. Davidson, Ph.D., a research associate with RMC Research Corporation.  The paper explains the READ NATURALLY program and how it is incorporated into students’, grades K-3, reading and comprehension curriculum.  In her paper, Davidson defines reading fluency, acquiring reading fluency skills, research-based interventions, the READ NATURALLY reading fluency intervention, the READ NATURALLY procedures and components, and how READ NATURALLY interacts with Reading First.  Then, she summarizes before including a concise outline of how READ NATURALLY is implemented and effective.

I was actually quite surprised at how easy this paper was to read.  Having little to no background in scientific research, not to mention little to any interest in the process, I found this paper both entertaining and educational.  I had a genuine interest in the subject matter and content. 

This paper falls into the genre of citizen’s explanatory.  People beyond sci/tech bloggers, scientists, and bloggers will find it interesting and informative.  Davidson proves that reading and learning about scientific research is not just for scholars and researchers with Ph.D.’s, but rather for people in every walk of life.  The subject is engaging, the language is easily deciphered, and the explanations are clear.

I believe Davidson’s paper is useful to citizens, such as parents of young students and educators within the school systems.  Understanding different programs and how they can become helpful to young children and students is necessary for parents in order for the students to be as successful as possible.  Similarly, educators should have knowledge for the resources available to them in and out of classroom settings. 

The READ NATURALLY program is described in full detail.  There is also ample background into the issue—noting the No Child Left Behind Act and how students improve their reading skills through various practices.  Davidson’s direct and informative style gives way to practical and concise explanations for the citizens reading her paper.

I noticed that this white paper draws on concepts from Jeanne Fahnestock’s “Accomodating Science.”   In this essay, Fahnestock states that scientific papers “cannot ignore creating a reason for their reporting” (Fahnestock 278).  Davidson’s paper has components of science, as it is based on research, and a clear intention for reporting the found results—to inform and explain.  There is also an overwhelming amount of human interest associated with this paper, which is discussed by Killingsworth/Palmer in “Transformations” when they write that “science must solve human problems and thus must transcend its own version of objectivism, its own self-definition, must become engineering if it is worthy of being reported” (Killingsworth/Palmer 135).   When Davidson relies on human interest on page four as she begins her paragraph with: “Unfortunately, when children struggle with reading skills, they often lose heart.”  I think it is safe to bet that most every citizen, especially parents and teachers who care so deeply for their students, is affected by a child who feels discouraged or disheartened by difficulties.

Despite the No Child Left Behind Act, there are thousands of parents whose children are reading below grade-level and falling behind academically.  By following research in a citizen’s explanatory genre, such as this paper, parents will have scientifically proven tools to improve their child’s reading and comprehension skills.  Not all parents have Ph.D.’s, so it is important that this genre be available to “the average Joe” parent who may not be able to conduct the research himself.

Synthesizing Self-Control: "Does Thinking About God Improve Our Self-Control?" by Jonah Lehrer and "Balancing the Self-Control Seesaw" by David DiSalvo

Though the blogs written by Lehrer and DiSalvo were based on different studies and experiments, many elements were consistent throughout both posts; first and foremost, their audiences. 

I think readers and writers can all agree that we gravitate again and again to favorite authors and genres—that is, we stick to the familiar.  This isn’t to say we only read texts by authors we’ve read before, but rather we feel a certain comfort in opening a book or blog or magazine knowing that it is written by an author with whom we have had a positive experience before.  With that acknowledged, it is fair to assume that both blog posts appeal to a similar audience base: one that is interested in how and why the brain makes the decisions it does—which, after reading James E. Porter, we can call a discourse community.

Does Thinking About God Improve Our Self-Control?  This blog post explains a study that was done in which some subjects were, unknowingly, prompted through exercises to think about God.  Other subjects completed the same exercises without any religious words, symbols, or ideas that may lead to their thinking of God.  Both groups were led to a second round of activities and exercises having to do with self-control.  Lehrer, in his post, shares that the subjects who had God on the brain were more willing and likely to choose patience over haste and suffer for reward—such martyrs!

When Lehrer is not explaining the experiment in full detail, he interacts with his audience and writes directly to his readers about his own experience with religion and self-control.  In doing so, he does not define kosher, but assumes his readers are familiar with the term enough to infer that it has something to do with why he could not eat pepperoni pizza.  DiSalvo’s post, “Balancing the Self-Control Seesaw,” is strictly business.  He shares no insight to his readers and does not offer any of his own experiences.  Instead, he spends the entirety of the post describing and explaining the experiment and its results.  So which technique is more effective?

As a reader, I enjoy getting to know the author and/or narrator.  The fact that Lehrer broke down the fourth wall to talk about his own experience with self-control and religion helped me to understand the basis of the experiment.  It answered the “so what?” question that I initially asked when I read the title of the blog.  Initially, I had absolutely no idea or interest in how religion affected self-control—it was something I’d never considered.  Lehrer’s examples from his personal life put the study into perspective and gave it relevance.

I find it interesting that Lehrer, known for plagiarism, borrowing information, and wrongful citations is the one who spent time talking to the audience about his own personal life while DiSalvo, who as far as I know has no major discretions against him in the blogging world, focused solely on the study.  Could this be Lehrer’s attempt at gaining readers’ affections again?  Re-earning trust by letting us get to know him as a person rather than just a writer?  We are taught to humanize ourselves as an act of self-defense; so perhaps, this was Lehrer’s self-defense act against readers who still view him as untrustworthy.