this blog post Is So Meta Even This Acronym

Well, it's time to blog about blogging. Wilber, chapter 3 will be the focus of tonight's blog.

I'll be honest, before this class, I was never a big fan of blogging.  Or, maybe I just didn't see the full value of it.

The first point that Wilber brings up is the use of blogs as a way to collaborate with fellow teachers and professionals in the same field as you.  I had really thought of this until I read it. I immediately realized that I already do a form of this already by browsing niche interest forums and discussing specific topics with forum members.  It's not exactly blogging, but it is the same concept.

Next, on page 49, Wilber talks about how blogs give students a chance to write for a semi-public audience.  I mean, they likely won't get a lot of traffic to their blog, but they still have to be mindful of the fact that they really are writing for a public audience.  It makes their work have more meaning, more than just to make the teacher happy.  

This leads to another major point that Wilber makes.  When a student finds more meaning in their work, they're more likely to keep to doing it.  On page 51, Wilber talks about how blogging encourages regular writing practice.  The more you write, the better you get (or at least, the more comfortable you get).  That's one of our main jobs as teachers--get kids comfortable with writing and communicating.  No matter what job they end up in, they will have to use the vital skills of communication.  The more prepared they are for that reality, the better.  Blogging could be a useful way to get them comfortable with communicating.

[citation needed]

So, I have a friend who is currently a sophomore here at SRU.  We were eating lunch together earlier this week and he began complaining about a research assignment he was given in one of his computer classes.  While some of his complaints were arguably brought on by his stubbornness, our conversation sparked some thoughts in my mind.

The complaint that most frustrated me was that his professor required the students to use sources from numerous types of media (book, website, journal, etc.).  At first, this actually seems pretty logical; you want to have a variety of sources to base your argument on.  But what I found frustrating is that nowadays there is so much overlap between print and non-print media that it almost seems foolish to require specific ones.  It would be better to simply require "credible" sources, wouldn't it?

That brings up the issue of defining "credible." My friend has never been taught how to look up journal articles on the library website. Should we consider only journal articles as "credible," or are regular websites worthwhile as well? Where do we draw the line between expert and random blogger or mere aggregate site? 

Personally, I don't really have an answer. Each case is different; each topic of research is different. 

I think this is something that we have to keep in mind as we enter the real world.  We have to know who will be judging the sources of our materials (a boss, publishing company, etc), and we have to define our own guidelines of what is "credible." Students hate ambiguities, and the have every right to do so.

Breaking out of boxes, or why the five paragraph essay is undermining quality writing

In Swenson et. al. we encounter several instances of criticism towards the traditional structure of essay writing--the "beloved" 5 paragraph essay.

"In an era of growing concern about student writing scores on standardized tests, we are also seeing large numbers of teachers and schools revert from more progressive pedagogies to reductionistic approaches that suggest that students need to master only a few steps to become successful writers."

I remember in high school being told by some of the not-so-engaging teachers that we should make our essays in a specific format and that if for some reason we decided to write in a more "progressive" way, they would actually deduct points.  This mostly stemmed from there lack of effort in grading and their desire to standardize their work (at least, that's my theory).

". . . formulaic conceptions of writing, instruction, and texts encourage students not to think critically . . . even as they reinforce the positivist impression that Truth can be known and communicated if writers only train . . . in a clear, linear, and orderly fashion."

Again, I remember instance where I felt limited by the supposedly "correct" structure of how writing "should" be.  Even at the college level I struggled with this. In Intro. to Ed. we were forced under strict guidelines of APA formatting.  My writing was unimaginative and robotic at times.  Even in College Writing II, I felt that my creativity and skills were being held back by the need to fit what "proper" writing is supposed to look like.

I propose that we, as future teachers, teach the traditional ways but also encourage other means of expression. We need to keep the past traditions in mind while incorporating new possibilities for the kids to try.  As long as they effectively convey their point, I think they should be encouraged to do so in a variety of ways.

Youtube University Classes

If you haven't heard yet, you can essentially sit in on top-level university classes from the comfort of exactly where you're sitting at this very moment. Sure, there really isn't anyway for you to get credits for the classes, but it's still an awesome way to supplement your current classes or learn something new when you're really bored.

The great thing is that there are a ton of these videos posted up on Youtube.  You don't have to subscribe or even sign up for anything (aside from a Google account for Youtube, but I imagine you have that already).  Anyhow, it's free and some creepy old guy in Russia isn't going to steal you identity while thousands of viruses invade your beloved computer.

First up:
Yale has nearly 1000 videos for you to choose from.
Yale University Classes Mainpage

MIT currently boasts 2,404 videos!
MIT's Youtube page

Harvard even offers lecture videos on Youtube.
Harvard classes on Youtube

So, yeah. Check them out. Learn something new. Brag to your friends. (Actually, don't do that; they'll probably not like it very much.)

A dance of mutual creation

"The physical world is not a disjointed mass where independent entities intermingle; but rather it is made up of interdependent entities locked in a continuous dance of mutual creation."  -Semali Ch.1, pg. 7

I don't know if it is because of the readings we've been doing in American Lit. I or what, but I found this quote to be particularly striking.  Think about it for a second; think about what it's saying.

We have to understand that no single piece of information acts on it's own (at least none that I can think of).  Everything happens in a context, a place, a time.  Everything is connected through some means of association.

As humans--not even as future educators--this is something that we need to keep in mind.  Our presence affects everyone around us in a number of ways. Even the little things can eventually make big differences.  We are acting to together to create tomorrow.

As educators, we have to be mindful of this phenomenon for numerous reasons.  The most obvious is the fact that we will constantly be on display to our class.  Our attitudes and body language will be directly on display for our students.  If we aren't excited about our work, they won't be excited either. The deeper, and possibly more important thing to interpret from this quote is the realization that learning can be achieved more fully when put into proper context.  When we look at archaic literature that students often find no interest in, we have two options: 1) explain and learn about the historical context, examine references within the work, and tie it to other works, or 2) examine a work explicitly separate from others.  The second option is dull, shortsighted, and overall a terrible way to teach anything.  The first is a much better way to encourage students to learn more and hopefully enjoy learning it.

Obscure metaphor:
You can't bake a cake without mixing your ingredients.

In other words, to get from eggs, flour, milk, etc. to cake, you have to make "connections" between them all in a mixing bowl.  To get from single passages about Puritan Literature to an understanding of early American writing, you have to mix Bradstreet, John Smith, etc. into a unit with plenty of contextual connections.

...I feel like I didn't quite explain that the way I had wanted, but I think you get the idea.  Basically, knowledge is pointless without application, context, etc. Thoughts?

Linguistics is playing mind games with me

I'm currently taking Dr. White's Linguistics course.  As I'm sure many of you know, he's a pretty big fan of phonetics and the transcription of said phonetics. He drills us constantly on how to show the pronunciation of words through use of the phonetic alphabet.  I'm starting to get the hang of it, but I can't help but to constantly question how I pronounce things.  Do I say them properly? What does it mean to say the "proper" pronunciation, anyway?

The word set that got me today in class was "tour, pour, poor."

Personally, I pronounce these all with the same vowels sound, making them all rhyme.  Apparently, however, that's not the "proper" way to pronounce them.  So I'm genuinely curious; how do you pronounce these words? Do they rhyme or not?

Also, do you think anyone should be able to label pronunciations "correct" or "incorrect?"  If so, who has that power?

Obviously, there needs to be a level of congruity between speakers, but I'm curious to see what is an acceptable limit to variation.  If the point is still conveyed, does it make any difference?

I'm not sure that I have any clear answers to these questions.  All I know is that my mind has been tainted by studying Linguistics.  I can no longer listen to a conversation with dissecting the subtle nuances of a person's speech.  It's quite "interesting" as Dr. White likes to say, but at the same time, it can be tiring.

...Oh, and I have yet to figure out how to pronounce "color." No matter how hard I try, it always comes out all wonky sounding.  I could use some help.

Hello, hello...

Oh hey!

I'm Jake, and as we all know, the main purpose for this blog is for Non-Print Media.  Hopefully you'll enjoy it, or at least find it amusing and thought provoking, or something like that.

Anyhow, about me.  I'm currently a junior and Secondary Ed. English major just like (almost) all of you. I'll also be adding a Philosophy minor that may very soon become a second major, who knows! So yeah, I like thinking about things and sometimes get a bit too overly analytical. Oh well.

As for my interests outside of school. I write poetry and play a pretty active role in the poetry club at SRU. (You should all join, by the way.)  I also do Civil War reenacting throughout the summer and play Dagorhir on the weekends. (Dagorhir is actually a pretty fun game of medieval combat, another thing you should get into.)  When I'm not doing all this or working, I like to ride my two bikes.  And, if all else fails, I find myself surfing the great depths of the internet.

Any questions, leave a comment.