Teaching Journal IX

Week 9

If we were still on quarters, we would be finishing up next week. Long live the superior quarter system!!

ahem...

This week my goals were to improve my class discussions because I had been feeling down about my discussion leading abilities. I believe I achieved my goal, but that the old nuisance of authority is once again rearing it's ugly head. That is, my attempt to get them to talk more involves me getting more informal with them. I figure it's better to have them talk (even if it's off topic, because I can steer them in the right direction) than have the dead fish look and behavior. But then I think it undermines my authority. Should I get my own conversation shark that I've heard so much about? This is my goal for week 10.

Monday: Today their peer reviews were due. It seemed like the handout really helped to ensure that each student but in a minimum standard of effort, but of course there are always exceptions. I told them that their project 2s were due on Friday (which I eventually extended to Monday 10/29). I introduced Project 3 as well. As usual, they were pretty silent with questions, but I think it is always a little overwhelming for them. I thought it maybe helped that they read Swales first before I introduced Project 3 formally, since Swales is really a framework for the project. We began with a free write and then defined terms. I started every class this week with a free write and terms. I think it works okay, but I always worry about things becoming repetitive (which is also why I had stopped doing group work every class period for a bit). I also had them do Carrie Ann's activity of simplifying the 6 criteria. This didn't work out like I hoped because some of the criteria are straightforward while others like genre are more complex. Overall, I'm not sure how I like the Swales piece. I first was emphasizing how important it was for Project 3, but then it became clear as we read more in this unit that they didn't have to follow his criteria to a T. I'm with my students that all the different views on discourse communities is confusing, and I'm not sure how useful it is for them to get them all; it might be better to just focus on a few.
     We then talked about discourse communities. I started as I like to do with some pop culture: tv shows (office space from Ch. 4 Intro, The Office, Community, The League)- workplace, study groups, fantasy football leagues. Also fans of tv shows can form a discourse community. Fans of sports teams, fans of a musical group (warped tour/Phish), gaming.  They got these but when I asked for some, they were unwilling to look outside their own lives for examples. I think my group lacks imagination. I'm also having trouble getting them to go outside of their own lives for a Project 3 DC. I keep telling them how rich the Athens community is, but I think it falls on deaf ears. Then we talked about Glenn briefly, focusing on the two different DCs (factory farm industry and PETA/animal rights groups) and how language is used in both (Doublespeak).

Wednesday: Gee discussion. We began with a free write asking them to identify some DCs or Discourses they are a part of or that play a part in their lives. I used these responses as guidance for their project 3 (I collected them and commented on them). Some of them were interesting (one student belongs to some fashion club here at OU), others were repetitive (sororities), or boring (sports team). Again I try to steer them to investigate one by going through The Post together and seeing how many Discourse Communities we can identify. The next activity we did was the most successful of the week (maybe the class): I had students come up and write what they think are the key terms of the Gee piece on the blackboard. The usual suspects were up and willing and the rest had to be called on. I think the physical act of getting up did wonders. I can't explain why it worked so well, but it got them moving, battled "The Fog" that surrounds them. They didn't do the best defining these terms, but there were a lot of them, and they attempted to define them, which I think is also important. There were a lot of wrong answers this week, but I appreciated the attempt. I think the students are very comfortable with each other after Project 2, and so they aren't afraid to be wrong in front of each other. But of course I want them to answer correctly, so I give them some time to flip through the article to refresh their memories. Ultimately, we didn't get through the Gee discussion; they got stuck on "metaknowledge". Because we have to write our lesson plans now, I write extensive plans. I include probably too much stuff because my class goes pretty fast through things and sometimes things don't work out the way I plan. This was the first time we had to continue a discussion into the next class period.

Friday: The. Kids. Were. Rowdy. Today. It also didn't help that I brought in candy today (their Halloween is Saturday, not the 31st). As soon as I began to write their homework on the board, I was greeted with so many moans! I told them that I'm SURE their other classes assigned homework and that I had EXTENDED the due date to Monday, so if they didn't want to work on it over the weekend, they should have turned it in on Friday. One group did turn it in "early" today. I guess now is the time they start negotiating the readings? Too bad. We only meet 3 times a week, not everyday like my freshman comp. class. They also asked why I never cancel class, which was met with a .................... reaction from me. I also don't have any sympathy for that because I am never absent from my classes; I value every class period.
      The free write I had them do asked them to think about their personal identities or Discourses, showing Gee's example ("being an American or Russian, a man or a woman..."). Then they were to identify them as primary or secondary and dominant or non dominant. This was also my chance to explain that Gee doesn't categorize Primary Discourses as dominant/nondominant but that he does believe that some pDiscourses yield power. Then we transitioned into discussing how Alan's Discourses affected his enculturation. I thought Alan was the easiest approach to the Wardle piece. The offering of candy helped with some of the participation, but it was still the usual suspects. Then in 3 groups they each took on engagement, imagination, or alignment and discuss what Alan did wrong and what he should have done. They all though Alan should have tried to negotiate rather than retain his identity. I didn't get to show the My Fair Lady clips, which I really wanted; I'm not sure it was essential, anyway. The last 10 minutes I brought in a hat with some terms from this unit (primary Discourse, Discourse, enculturation, etc.) and they had to identify both the author and define the term or give examples. They would get candy for answering. When I was choosing terms, I thought that it would be too easy, but they actually didn't do well at all with this (even stuff we had just talked about!) I'm not sure how to deal with their apparent inability to retain information. I get that some of this stuff might overlap and be confusing, but they can't even remember what non dominant Discourses are or that they come from the Gee reading? They do synthesis for every reading response!

Next week will apparently entail combating complaints against "boring" readings that are "too long." According to their reading responses, they already thought the Devitt et al. reading was too long, so they'll hate the Malinowitz reading. I also found the Devitt reading very helpful in terms of clarifying some things for Project 3, but they disagree that it was useful or interesting.

Teaching Journal VIII

Week 8

The goals for this week were to continue working on Project 2 and for the students to have a second stab at peer reviewing. Some students voiced disappointment with the first round of peer reviews, so another goal was to have the students take this step of the revision process seriously.

       Monday and Wednesday both were computer lab days, and were essentially a continuation of Friday. All groups by Monday had arguments (or were very near having an argument) so these lab days focused on revising their storyboards and improving their visual designs. I didn't make them respond to the writing for the web handouts, but I asked that they read them. For their peer review, they were asked to provide significant feedback on the visual aspect, so they do need to be familiar with those readings.
       On Wednesday I had planned to spend some time determining how well each group was collaborating, but I changed that part of the lesson plan. Again I went around to each group and addressed their concerns. By Wednesday, they were a bit more worried about getting everything done in time, so I'm glad I didn't try to push in anything else. Also, because POTUS was in town, it sort of indirectly affected some of the groups. For instance, one group had planned on doing Court Street Interviews after our class on Wednesday, but couldn't because one needed to get in line and the other wanted to avoid the chaos. I thought Wednesday was a useful day, soI I'm grateful I didn't have to cancel class like some other TAs.
       Friday we were back in the classroom. I first had students do a free write that served as a reflection over project 2. It was here that I asked them how well they thought collaboration worked. Answers varied. I think next semester, I will emphasize that students need to be self-motivated if one of their group members isn't pulling their weight; they cannot just wait until the last minute and rely on me to fix the problem, they need to be proactive because it is a group "grade." Also for next time, I think I will stick to even smaller groups--as in mostly pairs and maybe 1 or two of three. I think this will solve some of the issues of meeting outside of class.
       I also spent a big chunk of time on Friday explaining the peer review process. I made it more complicated than I had originally intended by assigning each group member within a single group to a different project. I also made them fill out a detailed questionnaire as well as compose a response letter to their peer. They have a lot of homework due for Monday, but I they need to take the peer review process seriously. After I explained the peer reviews, we workshopped Daniel, Jennifer, Carrie Ann, and Renee's project. I showed them an example of a cover letter for this project, as well as my own peer review of this website. This workshop went really well, definitely better than the workshop for Project 1, which was logistically difficult and unsuccessful. I didn't get to introduce Project 3 so will do so first thing Monday.

All in all, this was a good week; no class period went badly or less than I expected. Project 2 went so fast, I can't believe it's over. Project 3 also has a short time frame. I also always struggle with introducing a new project while one is still ongoing. I fear they will become overwhelmed, but I guess our schedule requires that overlap.

Teaching Journal VII

-->

Monday: This was a hard class. I had reservations way before I even walked into class today. The Wysocki article is that lethal combination: long and dense. I had warned them that even I struggled through this reading, which in retrospect was not a helpful thing to say. I’ll keep that stuff to myself next time. I always urge them, with these harder readings, to power through. Even if they get lost, I tell them to think of each paragraph as a way to start over and find some footing. For the other difficult readings we’ve done, I’ve focused on the main ideas and overlooked some of the more difficult aspects of the readings. I wanted to try something a little different with the Wysocki reading. For whatever reason, I got it into my head that the best approach would be a sort of close reading approach, where we would look together at key passages and decipher them until we could grasp them. I made a PowerPoint presentation to help with this, projecting the key passages on screen. I then wanted to focus on synthesis because I had found many strong and significant connections to other readings, which I also thought would be another way the students could grasp this piece. I was wrong.

We did not, of course, begin with this tack. I took one of Yavanna’s suggestions and projected the Peek ad and asked them a series of questions (I asked them about 10-12 questions about it). I first asked them to free-write their initial reactions to the ad. The response was disappointing. I didn’t take Yavanna's suggestion of dividing the class by gender because I have 4 male students and 14 female. I did bring up if this imbalance changed their answers or affected what they felt comfortable saying in front of the female students, and the 4 of them admitted that it good. This question generated some pretty good response, but they did not relate to Wysocki’s conflicted feelings (anger and pleasure). They all agreed they had a non-reaction to the ad, which I was not prepared for. I thought there’d be some disagreement and that someone would say it was an offensive image.

Instead of taking their lifeless response as an indication that they either hadn’t read Wysocki closely or didn’t understand it, I moved on to the text, and we worked through Wysocki’s responses to Williams, Arnheim, Bang, and Kant. As I suggested earlier, this just got worse and worse. I think they were getting it, but they were not into the close reading at all, and I eventually lost them. It basically turned into a discussion between one very participatory student (the one who clearly demonstrated she had read the article) and me. They wouldn’t even speak up during our discussion of Wysocki’s claim that this objectification can lead to violence against women, which I thought would be a very interesting debate. They also didn't latch onto the discussion about using visuals/text as rhetorical choices. One good thing they said to me after I asked them about the lack of discussion was that my power point presentations really help them understand it. I'm not sure how to take that because I don't like using them as a crutch. Although I incorporate a kind of Q and A with my PowerPoints, it still feels a bit like lecture. After observing Heather, I have been impressed with how she led discussion. I feel like I talk too much.

I'm not sure how I'll teach Wysocki next time, but I definitely would like suggestions (I wish we had posted the Wysocki lesson plans to blackboard).  One thing is clear to me, though. I will not be having them do dialectical notebooks for assignments anymore (even with the added summary and synthesis). I don't believe the notebooks result in the students' understanding of the texts (at least not any better than the reading responses). I think students skim read for good-sounding passages. 

Wednesday: Computer lab day. I began class by going over project 2 again to clear up what they were doing. I should have also gone through what I expected of them because I know they won't read the project 2 instructions themselves. I will do this on Monday. I then told them to take a couple minutes to go through their own literacy narratives (which they wrote out for today) and pick out their main literacy sponsors and any main points. In the example literacy narrative i used, I pointed out how that student essentially described reading as an escape from an unhappy home life. We discussed how this could be used to develop a theme/argument within their groups. They all decided that they didn't need the time to summarize these things, and opted instead to just jump right into it with their groups.

I then went around to each group and tried to provide guidance and suggestions- and tried to complicate their initial ideas. All the groups pretty much had their arguments ready to go by the end of class, with one group still trying to figure it out exactly. For the most part, I was impressed with how well they were working on these and the ideas that they came up with. I also really enjoyed this experience from a teaching perspective quite a bit. I enjoyed being able to be a resource for them as they were brainstorming. It was one of the few times I felt like I had a real purpose and that what I said was effective and helpful. 

Friday: Another computer lab day. I spent a bit of time going through some of the mediums listed on the project 2 instructions (I spent some time Thursday going through these myself and picking out the ones I found the most fun/helpful). Everyone really liked XtraNormal, although I think only one group is using that as part of their project. I then spent some time explaining storyboards. Even though they said they had never done them before, they seemed to understand it more quickly than I had anticipated. I'm not sure if I just underestimate their abilities or I am getting better at explaining things. I didn't even need to show the Pixar video. For the rest of class, I went around to each group. I quized them on their arguments and asked each member how their literacies related to the topic. Then I talked to them about which mediums they would use. One group is doing a Prezi ( I also encouraged them to make a website), one is doing a video, one is making a book, and the rest are doing websites (and one is putting an XtraNormal video on a website). I am pleased with both their topics and their chosen mediums. My only concern is that if they don't get the projects mostly finished in the lab days, then one student will end up "finishing it up" for the rest of the group. So I am now working on a way to ensure this doesn't happen.

Overall, the week began poorly after a disappointing Wysocki discussion but improved with the lab days. I enjoyed my role during lab time better than on Monday's discussion. I also graded their project 1 revised essays this week and felt that I provided good comments and feedback to them. I suppose as a teacher I need to focus on being a better discussion leader even though I get the most satisfaction (and feel I do the best job) from being a direct resource/mentor? to the students.

Project 2: Zoom vs. Blues' Clues

For project 2, we are looking at older PBS television shows such as Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, Wishbone, Reading Rainbow, and Zoom. We believe this type of programming inspired young viewers to be proactive in their learning. In other words, their learning did not stop when they turned off the tv. These shows were often interactive or they encouraged interaction with the local community. For instance, Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers are both built around a fictional community or neighborhood, and Reading Rainbow encouraged its viewers to hunt down certain books at the local library. We compare PBS programming to contemporary shows like Dora the Explorer and Blue's Clues, which are only superficially interactive with their viewers. They ask their viewers to follow along, but they do not inspire that proactive, emotional response in watchers. Throughout the episode, kids play along and do their part, but when the show is over, that's where the learning stops. They have indeed, done their part, and it ends there.

Blue's Clues

As the title suggests, Blue's Clues involves a sort of question-and-answer interaction between the host, Steve, and the viewer. Based on the clues Blue leaves behind as a way of communication, the viewer is supposed to figure out his message. In the above clip, viewers are supposed to guess based on the three clues (eggs, a tree, and sticks) that Blue saw a bird's nest. But what is this really teaching kids? How often are they supposed figure out riddle-like situations?

Perhaps the most salient part of this clip is the end song that Steve sings, in which he sings, "Thanks for doing your part, you sure are smart!" The end song is indeed a wrap up. It says goodbye to viewers without also encouraging them to continue learning or continue interaction. The viewer "part" or role begins and ends with each episode.

Zoom

While Blue's Clues encourages merely episodic viewer interaction and learning, Zoom, which is partially created from the suggestions of young viewers, strongly advocates for both interactive communication as well as continual learning. From the theme song: "We're all plugged into one world now. So let's talk; we want to hear from you!" Viewers are asked to send in different activities, riddles, games, experiments, etc.; they are encouraged to share their knowledge and literacies. The above lyrics encourage the viewer to not only interact with the show but to do so after the episode has ended. It prompts action post-episode. Compared with the end song of Blue's Clues, Zoom's ending specifically commands viewers to continue their learning after the show is over: "And if you like what you see, turn off the TV and do it!"Zoom suggests that the best education is the self-motivated education that occurs away from the television, post-episode; viewers are inspired by what they see on the show. Zoom acts as an impetus for learning rather than an end game.

***Note: We will not compare Blue's Clues and Zoom in our actual project because they are aimed at different age groups and education levels. However, although I am analyzing Zoom, some of these points can apply to Sesame Street as well, which is perhaps a more suitable comparison against Blue's Clues.

Journal VI

This week marked the start of a new chapter as well as a new class project. I think my students were happy to be done with Project 1 (though I think many of them will choose to revise). Throughout the week, I encouraged them to set up a conference with me if they had concerns about Project 1 before it was due to me. Only two took me up on the offer. Unfortunatley, after grading some of their papers, they really should have. Sometimes I am astounded by the laziness of students (one student didn't revise his paper at all since the intro and synthesis-didn't use any of my suggestions and added even more irrelevant information). I tabled that essay, because I'm not quite sure how to deal with it (do I REQUIRE him to revise or else give him a major violation? I hate to give him a major violation right out because I think he will just shut down). But they have not all been bad, and many vastly improved since the first version I saw of them.

Monday: I introduced Project 2. I didn't do so on Friday because I figured they would forget over the weekend anyway and I also wanted as little overlap with Project 1 as possible. I'm not sure how well I explained what Project 2 would entail because many seemed confused. They seemed to understand it a bit better on Wednesday after we did some work with literacy histories/narratives. We began class by discussing various literacies that they had. I tried to get them to talk about sports, musicality, or hobbies, but there were few takers (and they were the usual students who always participate). My goal for week 7 is to get the quiet students to talk more. I'm a shy person myself, so I hate calling on people; I recently started having them do free-writes at the beginning of the class; that way, if I call on someone who is quiet, he/she at least has an answer prepared. We then talked about sponsors, which they seemed to understand very well. We did the group activity that Talitha suggested and it worked out okay. The Dwayne Lowery group definitely struggled, and Carol White's group I don't think even read the article at all. I also assigned them their groups for Project 2 at the end of class and told them to converse about literacies for the last 5 minutes. Overall, class went well (I think all of my classes went well this week).

Wednesday: I was observed by Christina (although I observed Heather. We did a three-way; hope this doesn't screw things up!). I was nervous at first and honestly have to admit that I prepared a bit more than I would normally. But I almost immediately forgot I was being observed. I was so excited to teach both the hooks and Malcolm X pieces (hooks was a huge influence on my undergrad women's studies...studies). Unfortunately, I made a mistake by forgetting to assign them the Alexie piece as well, which I deeply regretted because, unlike the hooks piece, it was a literacy history and fit perfectly with X. I remedied this later, though, as you will see for Friday's class. I prepared a PowerPoint Presentation for these readings and I thought I made some good connections and generated some good class discussion. I was happy with this class.

Friday: Friday was unique because I had a hitherto unheard of number of absences! Attendance for my class has been excellent because of the grade contract, and many of my hard working, talkative students were absent today. I did the best I could with the Baron piece. I assigned them a dialectical notebook for Baron and I also had them just read the Alexie piece. I didn't discuss the piece, because really it is for their own benefit to see an example of a literacy history, but I did show the Colbert clip that Heather brought up. They didn't find it as funny nor did they really want to discuss what he was saying about e-readers and the digitization of books.
   Before I did this, I spent some time re-explaining project 2 because a student had emailed me saying her group went through the WAW assignment 2 questions and didn't know what do to next. I showed the example that John gave us, which I initially hesitated showing because I didn't want them to copy the subject or design. I feel like sometimes my students are lazy and have no idea how to be creative or come up with their own ideas- they want me to hold their hand through it all. This is why I had so many papers on plagiarism and procrastination. So many!
We then discussed Baron. We did the same activity Heather had us do in our 5890 class; it, of course, did not go as well- I was mostly telling them how each technology changed the way we write/communicate. Sometimes I don't know when I should just explain stuff to them ( because they either don't remember or don't know) or when I should be patient and let them try to figure it out (and read the text!) I tend to explain things because I think it's better they understand the concepts from me rather than being unsure themselves...I don't know. We also talked about the stages, which mimicked the way the first activity went, and then we talked about The Golden Age, which generated the most discussion. Overall, given how many were absent, I was okay with how class went on Friday. I did warn them about the Wysocki reading and told them to power through and to come with questions. I'm really worried about teaching it, frankly.

"The Sticky Embrace of Beauty" by Anne Frances Wysocki

Pre-Reading Exercise
     The first thing that came to mind was not really an advertisement but the Kroger reusable bags for breast cancer awareness. Christina brought this to my attention. It features a (pink of course) Rosie the Riveter, but she has been made over to be quite young looking and prettified- not a woman you would think would be up in a bomber factory. I can't find the exact image but it is reminiscent of this:

Instead of something like this:

 I'm not opposed to alternative versions of femininity being represented, but it took something that I love to see (women's health awareness, a feminist icon) and tainted it for me.

Summary
     In her text "The Sticky Embrace of Beauty," Anne Frances Wysocki argues that old notions of beauty and aesthetics are inadequate for teaching students how to critically approach visual compositions and differentiate between form and content. Wysocki bases her argument around a Peek ad which brings her simultaneously pleasure and anger when viewing it. She argues that ads that objectify people like the Peek ad bring these contradictory emotions because they are abstractions--unparticular/general; Ultimately she advocates for teaching students about visual composition as a rhetorical tool.

Synthesis
     Wysocki's piece recalls many different authors. Her final statement about visual composition as a rhetorical tool is reminiscent of both Kantz's rhetorical situation and Dawkin's idea of using another composition element (punctuation) as rhetorical. But because Wysocki's piece deals mostly with visual images/graphic design, her article is most similar to Baron, Bernhardt, Berger, and especially McCloud. She argues that beauty and aesthetics are complicated with the advent of new media and new technology, which relates to Baron. I think the four "design principles" she mentions from Robin Williams (contrast, repetition, alignment, and proximity) relates back to Bernhardt in emphasizing the importance of paying attention to how your audience will read and view your work (and where their eyes are likely to go first) (80). It relates to Berger because it addresses specifically the objectification of women's bodies and the idea that women are "surveyed" and to be looked at. The most obvious connections to me were with McCloud:  his vocabulary icons, symbols, etc.) to analyze visual texts, the idea of icons as abstractions, and the "simplification through amplification" concept:"In the telling of Arnheim and Bang, it is an almost character-less self, looking out from a body whose actions are constrained only by gravity. This is a body without culture, race, class, gender, or age....the body exists nowhere in abstraction, the body whose seeing--and understanding of what is seen--is now understood to be as constructed as any other cultural practice" (85). Whereas McCloud praises the ability of comics to bring about feelings of universality because of their abstract nature, Wysocki argues that these things are dangerous for how we view images/beauty/aesthetics.

QD
2. Wysocki definitely plays with her texts. She is very aware with what she is arguing. Unlike how I felt with Bernhardt, I thought she practiced what she preached. She not only had images, but there were separations, headings, bolded text, highlighted text, charts, etc. It was certainly a high-visual text rather than a low-visual text. It almost made it so the long, unbroken text sections were a struggle to get through precisely because she was otherwise playing with the design of the text. Perhaps that was intentional: she made visually interesting what she wanted the reader to pay particular attention to.

3. I am interested in reading the book, but I'm not sure how much influence the image of the woman has on that. I'm very intrigued by Kinsey and would be interested in what the book is about anyway even if it was not accompanied by a scantily clad woman. But I do agree with Wysocki on where the eyes are drawn to and why. It was a very interesting explanation. I'm not familiar with art and form theory so I had no idea so much science/planning went into it (other than having a focal point).

AE
2. I definitely buy the old saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I can never figure out "the rules" for what is aesthetically pleasing/attractive. I do not think that something has to be universally pleasing to be beautiful, because I don't think such an instance is possible and nothing is inherently beautiful. Because of how beauty ideals change, I do think that beauty/aesthetics are subject to social construction/forces.

Thoughts
   I really enjoyed this piece even though I admit I struggled through reading it (both in understanding and because of the topic/length). I of course worry all the time about assigning long, difficult texts to my students and how I will try to make them understand something I'm sure I don't accurately understand myself. But I think this piece is ripe with connections to other texts, so that is something we can latch onto. On the other hand, I'm not sure how I'll relate it to Project 2, which I want them to be thinking about with all the readings we do.

Baron IWA

Baron starts off with his argument: writing technology will or can change literacy practices.	“The computer, the latest development in writing technology, promises, or threatens, to change literacy practices for better or worse, depending on your point of view” (423).
Baron also claims that not only will writing technology change literacy, but people need to remember that writing is a technology.	“…it is easy to forget that whether it consists of energized particles on a screen or ink embedded in paper or lines gouged into clay tablets, writing itself is always first and foremost a technology, a way of engineering materials in order to accomplish an end” (424).
This is the first stage of literacy technology: available to an elite few.	“The technology expands beyond this ‘priestly’ class when it is adapted to familiar functions often associated with an older, accepted form of communication” (424).
This made me think of Bryson criticizing those people who resist and are terrified of change. It also refers to the common line of thinking that “older is better” and a proclivity for nostalgia.	“And as the technology spreads, so do reactions against it from supporters of what are purported to be older, simpler, better, or more honesty ways of writing” (425).
Mixed reaction to brand new technology: trepidation as well as curiosity; makes me think of the reactions to Kindles, Twitter, etc.	“Although I’m not aware that anyone actually opposed the use of pencils when they began to be used for writing, other literacy technologies, including writing itself, were initially met with suspicion as well as enthusiasm” (425).
Reminds me of the printing press stuff in Brandt.	“The pencil may be old, but like the computer today and the telegraph in 1849, it is an indisputable example of a communication technology” (426).
Baron’s main point: writing is a technology and it was the first “writing technology.”	“Of course the first writing technology was writing itself” (426).
Again, recalls Bryson.	“Both the supporters and the critics of new communication technologies like to compare them to the good, or bad, old days” (427).
Brandt! Increasing literacy standards and people w/o money or of lower SES could not compete/keep up. Only accessible to wealthy.	“…writing technology remained both cumbersome and expensive: writing instruments, paints, and inks had to be hand made, and writing surfaces like clay tablets, wax tablets, and papyrus had to be laboriously prepared” (428).
I just liked this section. Highlights the importance of writing technology.	“ Writing…also permits new ways of bridging time and space. Conversations become letters. Sagas become novels. Customs become legal codes. The written language takes on a life of its own, and it even begins to influence how the spoken language is used” 428-429).
Another stage Baron mentions. To give documents credibility, seals, signatures, etc. added.	“In order to gain acceptance, a new literacy technology must also develop a means of authenticating itself…. Written documents did not respond to questions—they were not interactive. So the writers and users of documents had to develop their own means of authentication” (429).
I love this term. How can I become a futurologist? I just picture bong hits and wild speculation.	“Futurologists” (433).
Baron briefly mentioned at the beginning that some people think computers threaten literacy technology; this is one way technology can be threatening or dangerous.	“Of course the telephone was not only a source of information. It also threatened our privacy” (433).
Mis/Reappropriation kind of similar to what Brandt talks about, but this time w/ new technologies and their intended purposes. Manifest/latent functions.	“Similarly, the mainframe computer when it was introduced was intended to perform numerical calculations too tedious or complex to do by hand…Computer operators actually scorned the thought of using their powerful number-crunchers to process mere words” (434).
Again, only available to the wealthy elite few who could afford it.	“…they still had to come up with the requisite $5,000 or more in start-up funds for an entry-level personal computer” (435).
Another stage: new technologies imitate or incorporate the old technology to become accepted. It also became more affordable.	“Only when Macintosh and Windows operating systems allowed users to create on screen documents that looked and felt like the old familiar documents they were used to creating on electric typewriters did word processing really become popular. At the same time, start up costs decreased significantly and, with new, affordable hardware, computer writing technology quickly moved from the imitation of typing to the inclusion of graphics” (436).
ID theft. I also think about the unreliability of Wikipedia entries as well as photoshop.	“The security of transactions, of passwords, credit card numbers, and bank accounts becomes vital. But the security and authenticity of ‘ordinary’ texts is a major concern as well” (436).
Illustrative of adaptation and how attitudes change about technology overtime. Does everyone come around to acceptance?	“When we began to use computers in university writing classes, instructors didn’t tell students about spell-check programs on their word processors, fearing the students would forget how to spell. The hackers found the spelling checkers anyway, and now teachers complain if their students don’t run the spell check before they turn their papers in” (438).
I think this quotes speaks to how some older technologies are retained over newer technologies depending on the discourse community/subject. For instance, some people might like Kindles but maybe for lit. study, the actual text is better because of page number, highlighting/commenting, etc.	“Eraserless pencils are now extremely rare. Artists use them, because artists need special erasers in their work; golfers too use pencils without ersaser, perhaps to keep themselves honest” (438-39).