Mayumi Blogger Template

Summary:

In PBS’s Digital Nation segment “The Dumbest Generation?” the main topic is because of technological advancements and media multitasking are we as academically capable as a generation as we once were? The segment completed research at MIT, backing up profession claims with actual student interactions and interviews. Media multitasking results in the current generation losing sufficiency of reading and more specifically writing. In terms of MIT essays, students admitted that they wrote in a more paragraph form because of media multitasking: they couldn’t remain on one essay without becoming distracted. Other students stated that they “never read anymore” especially with such inventions as Sparknotes.com where you can read a book in “5 minutes”. Mark Bauerlein wrote a book titled The Dumbest Generation, which argues that the current generation is just that. As more media exposure is increased, academic success in comparison to past generations decreases. Other professionals argue however, the distraction is the “price of gain” and question whether books are the best method to use today? For example, Mark Prensky a founder and CEO of Games2Train (a site based on corporate training with a game-based learning approach) believes that the verbs such as communicate read and write remain the same, but the nouns must change in order to adapt to our surroundings, and that learning ultimately stays the same. The segment ends with none other than Professor Henry Jenkins (Convergence Culture) who states that this issue has been an existing problem that we’ve already began to survive, and we need to go into the future open-minded and ready to adapt.

Inquiry:

This segment connects well with the Generation M Kaiser Family Foundation-it’s a more current analysis supporting Kaiser’s research that as media exposure increases, academic progress decreases. I felt that the segment documented many different opinions in an overall unbiased way, which added to the importance of the topic. I know that personally, I do write in paragraphs most of the time when writing essays, and that is influenced mainly by the numerous distractions on my computer via Internet. I also think that the critique on books can be related back to Robert Coover’s analysis on the end of the print medium. I found Jenkins’ comment interesting-why should we have to adapt to a movement that we are initiating? And if the population is too incapable to address the initiation of the media exposure, it should not be sitting on the sidelines upset with our childrens’ academic capabilities. Yet, I do realize that at this point in time our generation has become largely reliable on technology and this would be difficult to change, therefore adaption is necessary. Did you watch “The Dumbest Generation” and if so do you agree with the claims made by the numerous professionals? Do you feel that you are less academically capable because of your media influences? And what is your proposed idea of how to approach the future?

The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation published a 2004 research study surrounding media usage in youth ages 8-18 years old that they compare to their past publication in 1999 on the same subject. The first few pages of the report is the introduction, in which raw statistics of media usage within the youth in various decades of the 20^th century are highlighted in order to display their opinion that the increasing saturation of media within society is affecting younger generations and should be acknowledged as important. The introduction is broken down into two subsections: the past and current study. The “past study” reveals that the 1999 study was the first “comprehensive examination” of youth’s media exposure. It highlights multiple statistics surrounding media exposure: more than half of youth have personal televisions, average daily media use exceeded 6 hours, heavy hours of one medium influenced that of others, and over 40% of all media use was in regards to TV (Roberts, Foehr, and Rideout 3). These results confirmed past smaller studies, and posed new questions for the future. The current study analysis was address in the concluding notes section of the report. The Kaiser Family Foundation conducted the research on 2,032 young people, 8-18 years old who completed questionnaires, and 694 who completed a 7day diary of their media use. There were multiple statistics results that can be referenced in the report. The analysis, however, made multiple claims: as children grow older, their exposure to media also increases; males are usually more involved with video games, females with Internet social sites such as email and instant messaging; heavy media use results from over use of one medium, as well as media multitasking; academics lower with increase of media involvement; as more of their lives are spent with media personal “contentedness” lowers (Roberts, Foehr, and Rideout 58-60). The report also made interesting observations: although parents seem the most concerned with increasing media technology, most family homes have multiple televisions and computers with little to no restrictions. Ultimately, this research supports the initial claim that “the potential for media to influence significant aspects of their lives should not be ignored…” (Roberts, Foehr, and Rideout 60).

Inquiry:

The first thing I did was look up the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation online (find it here). It’s non-profit and a private organization that emphasizes INFORMATION, but no stance on issues. I found the amount of information presented to be quite daunting, and dense. However, I feel that even though the research was conducted 6 years ago, the information was already outdated. Advancements in computer technology and Internet services have largely surpassed those in 2004. Also not evaluated was social networking sites. Although they fall under the category of computers and Internet, sites such as Facebook are almost larger than instant messaging today. Their grouping of print as a media also interested me: I remember having this discussion at the beginning of the semester within our class. My final stance on the reports overall claim is that it is true, media exposure can affect youth on a large level and this should not be ignored. Do you agree with the overall claim? Do you think that there is any bias in Kaiser’s analysis? How do you think that a study completed today would differ? Do you think media exposure has affected your social life and how?

In Ulmer's reading, "Electronic Monuments", an examination of MEmorials is made. Ulmer analyzes the hypothesis of electronic monumentality is that the context for the proposal is the need for compositional practice and the capability of supporting learning with digital technology. The idea of electronic monuments is one that does not need to be created for the purpose of commemorating events such as 9/11, but also smaller and more personal events. The commemoration of the electronic monumentality is a fundamental experience that joins the individual and collective identity; which must be adapted in any case to the emerging apparatus of electracy, (Electracy is most obviously emerging as a technology with the continuing evolution of digital media). The apparatus analogy that Ulmer explains includes the matrix of orality-which includes the technology of natural language, literacy-which includes the technology of alphabetic writing, culminating in print, the institution of school and others, as well as electracy- the evolution of digital media. The proposal of this article is that the internet makes it possible for monumentality to become a primary site of self knowledge, for both the individual and the community. The idea of electronic monuments provides a sit supporting new politics and ethics as well as a new dimension of education.

In Don Fallis' article titled "Toward an Epistemology of Wikipedia", he argues that Wikipedia's epistemic consequences are likely to be good for our society. Fallis makes a statement that to make Wikipedia a good and more reliable source, we must clarify the epistemic values that we expect it to follow (Fallis 1662). Fallis argues that people are likely to acquire knowledge through Wikipedia as a result of having access to this information source. Collaboration has always been a successful tool that allows for people to share information and ideas and Wikipedia became a manner of doing just that. Anyone with internet access has the ability to access Wikipedia and the information that is on it. Wikipedia has been successful in building a good and general encyclopedia and has also become an online community (1663). Fallis makes epistemic concerns about Wikipedia clear such as the fact that Wikipedia is not a comprehensible and complete website, while we seek information from it as if it was. The concerns that he lists are the three ways that Wikipedia is not reliable as a credible and scholarly source. The three ways are that many do not have the expertise in the sources they are writing about, the idea that some aim to deceive rather than to educate, and that some strive to construct their own reality through the freedom of Wikipedia. While these concerns are prevalent and clear when looking at the sources that Wikipedia cites, or doesn't cite. Fallis questions whether Wikipedia is a reliable source for what information we are seeking. Wikipedia has the potential to be useful and helpful, but it is important to question what type of information we are trying to get out of it.

In relevance to the reading we read for last Thursday on Google, this video is pretty much a visual representation of the discussion-I thought it was very interesting!

Find it here.

Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guittari propose the idea of the rhizome in the "Introduction" from A Thousand Plateaus. The rhizome is related to the botanical idea of a plant that grows in multiple directions from a bulb as oppose to taking root from a seed. The authors posit that this structure can be related to the structure of thought (or lack thereof) in literature, though they seem to also suggest that the idea of a rhizome is a generalized structure that can be applied to a large number of other concepts (NMR 408-9). The authors break books down into three types of structures: the "root-book," the "radicle-system, or fascicular root," and the "rhizome" (408-9). The "root-book" refers to a book whose structure reflects that of a rooted tree, having a very well-defined structure (408). The "radicle-system" is defined to be more disjointed than the "root-book"; however, this model can still be considered to be a whole work (408). The rhizome is not supposed to reflect the world, and, "connects any point to any other point..." in the work (409). The authors are previously-published, stating at the beginning of the work that they published a previous work, Anti-Oedipus. As with the exact argument and the general writing style, the intended audience of the book is not made particularly clear. The introduction given in the New Media Reader suggests that the authors are very influential cultural writers.

The authors seemed to leave the actual definition of the "rhizome" very much open to interpretation, while setting some standards for what it is not. As the Introduction in the New Media Reader suggests, there definitions would likely be much clearer after reading the entirety of A Thousand Plateaus, or Anit-Oedipus (405). I have to disagree with the idea that such an unstructured style could exist and serve to transmit any useful or coherent information, though I also acknowledge that the authors never state a purpose for rhizomatic writing. The authors suggest that the movement through "Binary logic" in the "root-book" is limiting; however, I fail to see why another "root-book" could not expand on the first root-book in a different dimension to connect to a more complex analysis, as in the rhizome. The ability to use rhizomatic writing to describe hypertext escapes me, and I cannot think of a use or purpose; to me this article seems like the authors are being contrary purely for the purpose of being contrary. With that in mind, I propose the following discussion questions:

1. What other areas of knowledge could rhizomatic writing be used as a "better" method than the other writing methods defined in this work ("root-book" and "radicle-system")?
2. Is this work an example of rhizomatic writing?
3. Are the "root-book" and "radicle-system" methods of writing limited?

In her article, "Autistic Culture Online: Virtual Communication and Cultural Expression on the Spectrum," Joyce Davidson gives a call for awareness of the social movement of those on the Autistic Spectrum (AS). She cites evidence that the autistic community has a related 'form of life,' a "cultural grouping" of "... members who are 'related' in terms of the flexible notion of 'family resemblance'" (794). She then proceeds to discuss how those on the AS have difficulty communicating in 'neurotypical' (NT) social settings are finding the ability to form online communities centered around their AS 'form of life' (793-6). Davidson concludes by discussing different views on autism, including those who wish to 'cure' autism and those who would prefer to be identified as a minority group, and calls for an awareness of the latter.

Davidson appears to be appealing to those "neurotypical" people who are unaware of the movement for autism to be identified as a minority group. Though little is directly stated about Davidson in the article, it is shown to be published from the Department of Geography in Queen's University in a journal entitled Social & Cultural Geography. The title of the department would suggest that Davidson is a geographer, and not necessarily an expert in the subject of autism. Davidson does, however, have great respect for minority groups given her writing style; she uses the pronoun 'her' as a gender-neutral pronoun (793) and refers to the deaf community as "D/deaf," (798) possibly in consideration of those who do, and those who do not consider it a community. It is unclear if Davidson has anything to gain through the argument.

After reading the article, I felt embarrassed that I had only thought of people with autism as having a disorder, not as being associated with a larger community that was simply different. I would have to agree that with the author's argument that people on the AS should be treated as a minority community rather than as having a curable disorder. Davidson's wording became somewhat confusing in the discussion of a 'language game.' The description of autistic 'language games,' moving from Wittgenstein's definition of the link between, "a particular use of language with the 'actions into which it is woven'" to Davidson's definition of 'autistic language games' as something that, “might be seen as emerging from partially shared experiential background and 'identity'-that is, self-identification with a place on the spectrum" (794) seems like a very confusing way to identify a shared background among those on the AS; nonetheless, her argument stands. I would like to propose the following questions for discussion:

1. Should the argument for autistic individuals to be identified as a minority group rather than a group with a disorder apply to low-functioning autistic individuals? Seeing as there are distinctions in other groups, such as deaf versus hard of hearing, should there be other distinctions in the autistic community?


2. Several major online games, including World of Warcraft and Everquest involve other social interactions outside of text-based communication, such as forming guilds and groups, and allowing character gestures (such as waving, bowing, etc.). Do autistic communities have a harder time forming on these major online games?


3. How is Wittgenstein's idea of a 'language game' used in other contexts?