I'd like to make a motion that all of the cool stuff we are learning about multimodal writing in WRIT 371 is actually applied to texts about multimodal writing.
I still suffer through long articles from academic journals.
In the syllabus, Doug has titled Tuesday's class "Imaginary but Real."
That's pretty all-encompassing, especially if you're an existentialist (I don't really understand existentialism, but I imagine it relates).
Wolf's article talked about computer technologies taking on massive and unprecedented roles, like satellites collecting a terabyte of data in ten days and technologies which simulate crash tests of cars that have never been built (422, 426).
The problem with this is that nobody wants to analyze a terabyte of data every ten days, and who trusts a computer-generated safety rating?
Basically, computers are flawed. They're imaginary. But they're real! And they are very overstimulating. It's basically impossible to analyze a terabyte of data every ten days, and it's equally impossible to process everything the internet has to offer on a daily basis—news, Facebook, email, Netflix, articles from academic journals that are required reading for class.
So I imagine that not everything out there needs to be processed, and focus on the most pressing reading material (Facebook).
Mishra was a more painful read than Wolf. I agree that the use of images in education should be (should have been a long time ago) researched more extensively; as a future educator I want to know what's happening with visuals and stuff. But I imagine that Mishra's concerns can be addressed by any teacher, if the teacher explains the visuals they use, their conventions, abstractions, biases and assumptions. But first, the teacher must understand these concepts, hence the call for more research.
I love that you have Facebook listed as the most pressing reading material! I was actually just thinking about FB today in connection with this class, actually, and noting that it seems to be a really effective way for me to peruse most websites I want to keep up with. I just "like" them on FB and they post their new stuff to my page and Bingo! I see what looks interesting and click on it. So far Fb works better for that for me than iGoogle or Reader. (And people just think FB's a waste of time!;-)
ReplyDeleteI, for one, feel a hell of a lot safer sharing the road with vehicles that have complex computer systems that enable them to stop faster (in some cases even before the driver can react), control traction, and improve safety. Computer crash testing, at a fraction the cost of actual crash testing, can generate WAY more accurate and detailed tests. Perhaps manufacturers are investing those millions of dollars saved into improved safety equipment and technology.
ReplyDeleteIt's 2011. Computers are not evil. We CAN trust them, and to a larger extent than most realize, rely on 'detached' computer technologies everyday. We have machines that CAN analyze 10TB of data in a split second.
New technologies emerge. People distrust them. Techology prevails. People who didn't trust them or resisted change fall behind.
I completely agree with Daniel, It would seem that computers are a means of improving. We shouldn't feel the need to process everything, because computers in a large sense do it for us. In terms of crash tests, we can program everything we know about engineering into a computer and simulate on end until the structural issues are resolved, then surely for production standards real vehicles can be destroyed if only to confirm predictions. An unrealistic task w/o computers accomplished because of computers.
ReplyDeleteLikewise I reckon much of what we experience is largely due to computers.