« January 2006 | Main | March 2006 »
Stephanie Morgan and Daniel Anderson sat down for a discussion of what has been happening in the SITES lab this year. Highlights include discussion of podcast assignments in classes and in the Department and our thoughts on technology on campus--see the recent posting about reduced access to new media equipment for TF-taught classes, which reinforces our concern that technology support on campus is not keeping pace with transformations in eduction.
Today I recieved an email from a representative of [notoriously well-funded on-campus institution devoted to undergraduate achievement] stating that my students should not go there for cameras and iMovie editing since "We have quite a heavy load of classes this semester, and priority has to given to the needs of Faculty." I exchanged another round of email with said representative to ensure that I was not mistaken, but indeed, I was assured by this representative that "[This person] would do everything [s/he] could to help TF taught Eng 12 classes, but [s/he] had to give priority to Faculty taught classes."
Err, why?
I understand that this person is allocating limited resources with the best of intention, and probably with direction from institutional leaders. This decision begs some important questions, however. Are students in TF classes less deserving of access to equipment? Is English 12 (almost always taught by a graduate student, post-doc or adjunct), a required course, not an appropriate space for new media pedagogy? Does this policy not unfairly burden the Writing Program? What does this say about how UNC-CH values Rhetoric and Composition?By contrast, is a faculty taught course (generally not a WP class) assured to be the right place to explore technology in the classroom or new media? Are students in faculty taught courses handicapped in such a way that they cannot fight the masses at the library? Are faculty more able/less able than TFs to guide students through technology assignments? Do students learn more in faculty taught classes? Are the courses worth more on their transcripts? What would be alternative ways to divide the "haves" from the "have nots" than by instructor rank? The subject matter of the course? (Courses about new media get the thumbs up, others don't. . .)
An interesting little intellectual nosegay dealing very literally with the nexus between litarature and technology can be found in this article buried deep in the New York Time. Apparently, a German death mask dated 1616 just might be that of the Bard after all. All manner of science has now been brought to bear on this question. Brave new world indeed.
In this article from the NY Times, read about how the inundation of student emails is driving some professors nuts. Katie and I talked about this, and agreed that while there are some basic issues of etiquette that should be addressed, we felt that responding to student questions is part of a professor's job. At anyr ate, the piece raises some interesting questions of boundaries, and also questions of voice and audience, that are worth considering. Thanks to Joe from Comp Lit for pointing it out.
This article from the (London) Times online deals with an issue similar to the one in Melissa's entry below. Although it focuses on the controversy over those cartoons published in Denmark, the last few paragraphs deal more specifiically with why the web has become such a valuable and contentious/contested resource in recent years. The author (Andrew Sullivan, surprise!) notes that no one is "editing" Web content the same way someone edits print journalism, but in many cases the press is so edited and produced (if not outright censored), that the Web and the blogosphere are really the only places to go to find actual information. It's a question of who/what you trust.
I don't want to get into the politics of the Danish cartoon that has forced both the east and the west to reexamine their cultural values and the relationship between those values. I do, however, want to make a general comment about an argument I heard last week on NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5193569. In general, the US printed news media has banned the reprinting of the cartoon that has offended so many people around the world. The editor of the Boston Globe cites a policy already in place that prohibits the publication of images or words that are "grossly offensive to a religious group or racial group or ethnic group."
But an interesting, and to my mind scary, argument came from Jacob Weisberg, the editor of Slate.com, who says that "his online publication doesn't have to think about offending people the way newspapers do." He claims that because he runs an online news source he doesn't "have to make that same choice...I think we simply operate on the Web in a less paternalistic environment. In a newspaper or print magazine there is finite space, and you're making decisions about what you can fit into it and you're inevitably making decisions about what's suitable for your reader."
One implication of his argument, as I see it, is that since the internet does not demand editing, editorial choices aren't really necessary. Considering that the ethics of print jounalism often comes under fire, it seems alarming that internet journalism may have even lower ethical standards, or no standards at all.
It seems like standards are going to be necessary eventually. People talk about the Internet as a great "democratizing force." The editor of the Washington Post recently called the Internet the "wild, wild west." Can a healthy democracy really flourish in the "wild, wild, west?"
Check out this week's podcast.
In this NYTimes article, read about RFID implants. Literally, a computer chip is implanted under the skin, and it allows you to open doors, log on to your computer, and unlock your car door with just a wave of your hand. We were talking in one of my classes about whether technology functions as a sort of prosthetic, enabling us to avoid or at least simplify otherwise uncomfortable and difficult situations. I'm not sure what I think about it...I mean, I think it's gross, on one level, and can't imagine ever doing it myself. And I am inclined to think technology contributes to the disengagement and disconnection so prevalent today. The thought of being able to "plug" myself into a computer a la The Matrix is pretty horrifying and seems to undermine our humanity. So I guess I do know what I think about this. Other thoughts?
Dr. Anderson mentioned an interesting website this morning as an example of how problematic the web can be as a source of information. The site is constructed as if its claim is backed by documented scientific proof that has been covered up by various government agencies, complete with links to other (reputable) sites and lots of information about top secret government studies and research. http://www.dhmo.org is a clever spoof, with information about a dangerous chemical that is wreaking havoc with the environment and with our bodies, dihydrogen monoxide, otherwise known as water (this noxious chemical is apparently contaminating all of our sewage).
SITES has a new domain! Our new space will be more interactive, based on the Drupal Content Management System, and anyone who's interested will be able to sign up and post materials! Right now we've set up an image gallery, and are soliciting any interested parties to sign up and upload images into our gallery, which our staff members will then incorporate into the new site design. If you have any comments or suggestions for our new space, please comment here or sign up in the Drupal system.