Unit 3 Essay Post

Learning takes place on many different occasions, at all different times and in many different means. As each of us has transitioned into different discourses in our lives, we have most likely discovered what learning style works best for us. We have come to rely more and more on the convenience and reliability of computers and the internet. It’s not very often I would chose to pick up a pencil over the option of my PC. In today’s day and age, if given the choice, most would agree. We as a society have become so dependent on our computers, it has become our main source for communication as well as education.
All through my primary education, from elementary to high school, I had to write essays. The topics obviously varied as my education advanced, however, the method remained the same. We were to research our topic, using a minimum of 3 hard copy books. There was one rule set in place; any usage of the internet would not be tolerated. Teachers believed the internet wasn’t a reliable source for information. As I look back on that experience, it seems foreign to me. In today’s society, so many of us, including myself, rely on computers and the World Wide Web as our main source for information. We use them for research, organization and most commonly, communication. In the essay, “From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technologies” by Dennis Baron, we are introduced to Baron’s opinion of the transition from paper to computer. He talks about the same uneasiness my teachers had. He says, “Not only must the new technology be accessible and useful, it must demonstrate its trustworthiness as well” (72). Since the invention of the computer, it has become a part of our daily lives. We tend to forget the times before them, when we relied solely on pens and paper.
The use of computers for me has become second nature. I use them at work, at home, and even on my cell phone. So, for me, it only seemed natural for me to continue my education by taking online classes. I must admit, the convenience factor played a big role in this decision. I thought it would be easier for me to work at my own pace, and have all material needed available to me at all times. What I didn’t realize, was the amount of work required to be successful in an online course. It takes a lot of self motivation, as I am one who gets distracted easily. In Walter Ong’s essay, “Writing is a Technology that Restructures Thought,” he discusses the importance of oral versus written communication. Ong believes oral communication is a key element in literacy. He states, “Once reduced to space, words are frozen and in a sense dead” (22). Before reading Ong, I had never thought of words as being living or dead. However, I think it is a valid point. While the handiness of online courses is obvious, there are other aspects to examine as well. The lack of face to face communication can be a hindrance. In order for students to communicate with their teacher and fellow classmates, we must write out our thoughts and questions. There are no immediate responses, and sometimes ideas can be misconstrued. Although all of us are entitled to our own opinions and interpretations, we may not be privy to another classmate’s analyses, which may prove to be important to the discourse. However, with computer based courses, we are unable to communicate these questions verbally. This is why our words can become frozen. Once written, they are locked in time.
As technology advances, so does the way students are taught. Many schools have completely replaced pens, pencils and notebooks with electronic devices. Students now have one place to take notes, do research and compose writing works. Some may argue this way of teaching deters students from reaching their full learning potential. In the article, “Online – R U Really Reading” by Motoko Rich, we see the effects some students face from reading online instead of hard copy books. Some people believe the internet is the “enemy of reading — diminishing literacy, wrecking attention spans and destroying a precious common culture that exists only through the reading of books” (1). While I agree there are plenty of distractions on the internet, I believe it is a convenient place for students to learn. I think when it comes to books, we have the tendency to look ahead. This can sometimes put extra pressure on us because we feel like we are reading just to get it done. The connection to the material can easily be lost. Online, the shortened paragraphs, the larger font and the inclusion of the occasional pictures can make for a more engaging and smoother read. I think as time goes on, and the technology continues to advance, we will see less and less people who read from hard copy books. I believe we will see much more of the web and electronic based books as time progresses.
Computers have become a staple in today’s society. We use them to email, organize, task, socialize and work. We rely on them to be our communication companion. Even though we all learn and grow at different paces, one thing is certain. As times change, our reliance on computers will always remain the same. As they become been more and more integrated into our lives, we will continue to see a decline in the use of pens and paper and an increase in the advancement of electronics. As Walter Ong says, “Writing separates past from present” (26). As the means in which we write transitions, we will be able to see a clear definition from past to present writing tactics as well.

Kosut and Delpit

As I read both Kosut and Delpit's essays, I found things I could relate to. For as long as I can remember, my husband and I have had an ongoing debate. The debate is public vs. private schools. I am a child of public, whereas he is a product of parochial. I have never received any private education, and he has never received public education of any kind. Based on the education I received, I am a strong believer in the public education system. I never felt as if I was not getting the best education possible. One of the policies public education is known for is their choice program. This means students from all walks of life, privileged or not are able to get the same education. My husband has a hard time with this. Not that he believes all students shouldn't get a fair shot, but he wonders how students with so many different backgrounds and educations can be taught successfully at the same level, and each child will comprehend the material.

You see, when my husband was in school, parochial schools did not have the choice program. Since we all know there is a significantly higher cost for private education, we know it takes dedicated parents to send their children into these types of schools. He feels students are all coming from a similar background and therefore puts the students on the same playing field. They have an advantage, per say. Everyone follows the same curriculum with no room for choice. Each child comes from the same type of lifestyle with the same expectations. This reminds me of the underlying cause of Kosut and Delpit's essays.

Delpit especially shows us the struggles students from underprivileged homes have to face when getting an education. They do, in fact, face teachers and faculty that believe they just can't do it. These students have to work twice as hard to prove themselves, because of their backgrounds. I can't fault my husband for the way he feels because he has never known anything different. The crazy thing is, he has fought for the freedom and rights of this country in this current war we are fighting and he now serves our community as a firefighter. Two things very important to our country. However, the same problem lies with him as does with many people... they are too closed minded. Yes, there are students that will need extra attention, but that's what I love about public schooling. Anyone and everyone are given the same opportunities to succeed. And if they are struggling taking on their secondary discourse, help is almost always available.

Gee Response

I agree with the nurse story. I think it does a great job of including all major points of Gee's theories. Gee tends to focus on acquiring second discourses more so than already having a first. The first is pretty much a given, as everybody is going to have one. What I find really interesting is how different people will acquire and adapt to their second discourses. Studying this makes me think of something that happened to me recently.

I have worked for the same communications company for 6 years. For 5 and 3/4 of those years, I worked as a sales rep. As a sales rep, the majority of our pay is commission. I had to focus on selling many different products, and find a way to somehow relate the same products to different customers from many walks of life. The learning vs. acquiring scenario is well proven here. Although I was thoroughly trained in all aspects of my job, I only had a basic knowledge of the products and services. It took many years of practice for me to become a successful sales person. I may have known my products, but I had to acquire the ability to adjust to each customer based on their needs and personalities. I had to somehow show the value of the exact same products to people with many different needs. This can be very intimidating, and many times overwhelming. Sometimes I wasn't able to give a customer what he wanted, or solve an issue. Thus, a conflict is created. A conflict in myself, as I dont know how to adjust from product knowledge to creating a solution the customer is pleased with. Through experience, I have gained the knowledge base to create solutions that are beneficial to both me and the customer.

In the last 2 months, I have been promoted to a management position. My position now only focuses on one aspect of the business. This may sound easier, but in fact, it has created more conflict for me. I have taken on another secondary discourse. I need to learn through experience how to transform into a boss to those that were my co-workers a few days prior. These skills are not something I can be taught. It will take me many months, if not years to become a successful manager and create a focus I can be proud of. This proves Gee's point and also agrees with the nurse story. The transition from one discourse to another can only be taught to a certain extent. To be completely successful and fluent in that discourse, it will require me to learn by doing, not by instruction.

Haas vs. Bartholomae

"At the college level, to become literate is in many ways to learn the patterns of knowing about, and behaving toward, texts within a disciplinary field." (358). Haas is saying that many students succeed in college by reading a text, understanding the material, and being able to remember it for future use. Most of the time, this doesn't require a student to take any ownership of the content, or take a vested interest in the point an author is trying to make. A successful student is often looked upon as one that can mimic the key points of his or her studies, which is shown by high grades on tests, quizzes and projects.

Bartholomae states, "The students have to appropriate (or be appropriated by) a specialized discourse, and they have to do this as though they were easily and comfortably one with their audience..." (511). Barthlomae is saying the same thing Haas is. Even though he is talking about writing, whereas Haas' essay discussed reading, both are connected. While a student is reading, they have to understand the concept they are reading about, and in turn, be able to turn that understanding into their own words on paper. Bartholomae discusses the student should be one with their audience (the reader). This is the same point Haas is trying to make; even though the reader may not be completely interested in the material they are reading, the author and reader have to somehow become "one" to be successful.

Shannon's Eng 201 Blog

When I first wrote my creativity essay, I felt as sense of accomplishment. I am just getting back into school, so it has been a long time since I had to write any sort of paper. I thought for days about what I wanted to write about and what creativity meant to me. I finally decided to write about meeting my sister for the first time, and the steps I took getting to that point. When I finished it, I sat and read it to my husband, who of course said it was great (he has to). But, after reading Bartholomae's essay, and rereading what I wrote, there's a lot more that could have gone into it.

I wanted to write something outside of the box, but when I look back at it, I feel like I may not have written too much about creativity. I spent more time explaining the situation than I did about why I thought it was creative. I guess you could say I used some commonplaces. I assumed the reader would understand why I thought this situation deemed me as "creative".

If Bartholomae read my essay, he would most likely compare it to the white shoes essay. I say this because of the comments he makes about it. He talks about how the essay was relatively free of errors, but pretty much just got the job done. Although at the time I wrote it I didn't feel this way, as I reread the essay now, I can see how I lacked the expansion of ideas.

I did discuss what creativity meant to me, which I feel makes my writing more on a personal level, but I definately could have added some confusion to the common understanding of creativity.

Looking back on my first discussion post, I realize I may have been a little too closed minded. Although I still don't agree with all of his ideas, I can understand his point, and I tend to agree with him more now than I did at the beginning.