Here is my URL.
http://complabs.nevada.edu/~altman
Hopefully the links still work.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
My dear readers,
Website Reflection
Making a website, like so much of ENG 701, was a new experience for me. I’ve not been asked to build a site before. It was frustrating to say the least. But nothing good ever came easy. At first, I tried checking every free hosting service I could think of, including 50webs. Unfortunately, both my home and office computers are dinosaurs that can hardly run anything. So I ended up making my site through UNLV OIT.
I am glad for what I’ve learned. At least I now know how to edit pages in MS Word. Also, I’ve learned that you have to edit and link every little individual page. That makes sense, it just was irritating because I more than once forgot to make those said links, thereby driving myself loony. I was glad to know that at least I already knew how to change the background colors. Though I ultimately went with grey to be not so tacky.
The text was easy enough to do through MS Word, since I use Word every day just about. I was glad I could cut and paste the text I had already made previously. Call me nuts but to me the text seems to me the point of a site. I mean pictures are nice but my text is what I wanted to convey.
As far as the text I wrote, I started off with information about me including my goals and research interests. I love poetry and want to teach it someday. I also have a page detailing my albeit limited teaching experience. I wish I really could find a way to show through the website how much I love my job. My Interests page combines with my Teaching page to detail what I want to do academically in the future. Also, I posted my admittedly slim Vita, which I will strive to expand in the future.
Anyway, I enjoyed making the site. This was my first stab at a site. This activity showed me how complicated web design can be. I never would have thought that parts of a site did not kind of “hook” together automatically. Hopefully, I’ll remember for next time. I now understand how important the internet is for self promotion and relaying information both about me and the world at large.
I think Sullivan’s “Taking Control of the Page: Electronic Writing and Word Publishing.” Is relevant to what I did due to the increasing use of web based methods for teaching. I also think that McGee’s article “The Politics of the Program: MS Word as the Invisible Grammarian” was also useful since I used MS Word to help with the site. I can see that MS Word’s grammar checker can potentially affect the way things are phrased on a site made with Word.
Freire tells us that we as educators make ideological choices in everything we do. That makes me stop and consider what am I saying ideologically through my new site without realizing it? I certainly hope I haven’t made myself seem anti-visual by not having pictures on my site. I love pictures. I just did not want to stick pictures on there just to have pictures. Every part of a site should serve a purpose.
Thank you so much for your time,
James Altman
Website Reflection
Making a website, like so much of ENG 701, was a new experience for me. I’ve not been asked to build a site before. It was frustrating to say the least. But nothing good ever came easy. At first, I tried checking every free hosting service I could think of, including 50webs. Unfortunately, both my home and office computers are dinosaurs that can hardly run anything. So I ended up making my site through UNLV OIT.
I am glad for what I’ve learned. At least I now know how to edit pages in MS Word. Also, I’ve learned that you have to edit and link every little individual page. That makes sense, it just was irritating because I more than once forgot to make those said links, thereby driving myself loony. I was glad to know that at least I already knew how to change the background colors. Though I ultimately went with grey to be not so tacky.
The text was easy enough to do through MS Word, since I use Word every day just about. I was glad I could cut and paste the text I had already made previously. Call me nuts but to me the text seems to me the point of a site. I mean pictures are nice but my text is what I wanted to convey.
As far as the text I wrote, I started off with information about me including my goals and research interests. I love poetry and want to teach it someday. I also have a page detailing my albeit limited teaching experience. I wish I really could find a way to show through the website how much I love my job. My Interests page combines with my Teaching page to detail what I want to do academically in the future. Also, I posted my admittedly slim Vita, which I will strive to expand in the future.
Anyway, I enjoyed making the site. This was my first stab at a site. This activity showed me how complicated web design can be. I never would have thought that parts of a site did not kind of “hook” together automatically. Hopefully, I’ll remember for next time. I now understand how important the internet is for self promotion and relaying information both about me and the world at large.
I think Sullivan’s “Taking Control of the Page: Electronic Writing and Word Publishing.” Is relevant to what I did due to the increasing use of web based methods for teaching. I also think that McGee’s article “The Politics of the Program: MS Word as the Invisible Grammarian” was also useful since I used MS Word to help with the site. I can see that MS Word’s grammar checker can potentially affect the way things are phrased on a site made with Word.
Freire tells us that we as educators make ideological choices in everything we do. That makes me stop and consider what am I saying ideologically through my new site without realizing it? I certainly hope I haven’t made myself seem anti-visual by not having pictures on my site. I love pictures. I just did not want to stick pictures on there just to have pictures. Every part of a site should serve a purpose.
Thank you so much for your time,
James Altman
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Number 13: for the week of April 29, 2010
My dear readers,
The main problem at play in this week's readings is the idea of writing assessment. How should writing quality be assessed? As with most issues dealing with composition there are a number of different viewpoints. Huot in his article "Toward a New Theory of Writing Assessment” contends that in order for multiple-choice tests to have become as prevalent in assessing writing as they have, instructors must have put a great deal of faith in the testing technology. Well, that sounds to me like the same sort of thing McGee talks about with Microsoft Word and the “Invisible Grammarian”. Both cases involve people we possibly unfounded trust in a technology which may not be reliable. What I mean is, Microsoft Word’s grammar checker is not always correct. Unfortunately, my students think it is infallible, leading to numerous corrections on their papers that they are not expecting. If one piece of technology has limitations, why should we assume another does not? I understand the desire to take subjectivity out of the equation, but are multiple-choice assessments which are still subjective, owing to the fact that the person writing the exam will privilege what they feel is most important and ignore everything else really the best answer?
Huot in his other article for this week "The Literature of Direct Writing Assessment” discusses the three major ways correctly in use for assessing writing, namely, single trait, analytic, and holistic. Single trait, is just what it sounds like in that one facet of the piece of writing in question is considered above all others, its quality or lack thereof is the total basis for assessment, such as grammatical correctness. Analytic takes a couple of factors, such as grammatical correctness, and persuasiveness into account. Holistic grading, which I use, take everything into account. Of course, not everyone feels that way.
Edward White's article "An Apologia for the Timed Impromptu Essay Test” reminds us that "for most of our colleagues outside the English department and for almost all administrators, assessment means multiple-choice testing; evaluation of actual writing, whether on impromptu essay tests, term papers, or portfolios, is still generally seen as hopelessly subjective, unreliable, and arbitrary." While I argue a lot of the supposed subjectivity could be removed by more clearly defined rubrics, I can see the point from their point of view.
In his other article for this week, "The Scoring of Writing Portfolios” White makes a claim which I think is a nice wish. He says “one particular strength of portfolio assessment is its capacity to include reflection about the portfolio contents by the students submitting portfolios”. My senior year of high school, Lyon County school district instituted mandatory portfolios as a requirement for graduation beginning with that year’s seniors. To be blunt, nobody in my school had a clue in hell how to handle the new requirement. Yerington High School had never used portfolios before. So the administration improvised. No reflection went into the portfolio I submitted for graduation, at least no reflection from me. Every item in it was selected by one or more of my teachers, most of them without ever asking me if I wanted that specific item in my portfolio or not. Honestly, about one quarter of what was in my graduation portfolio, was entirely a mystery to me until about 20 minutes before my final presentation for graduation… why? Because the teachers advising me at not made up their minds when the last few items should be until that moment. And for those of you wondering how our portfolios were assessed, well, we got up in front of the school board members, talked for about 15 minutes each, were told "great job on your portfolio" and then told to quickly exit in order to make way for the next graduate. I declare to this day I still don't fully understand why most of the things that went in my portfolio were there at all.
As you might suspect I'm pretty sour on portfolios, but that's only because I still don't really understand the point of doing them, and the article really did not clear anything up for me. I'm much more enjoyed “Constructs of writing proficiency in US state and national writing assessments: Exploring variability”. Just thinking about the variability in exams and standards across the country drives home to me the idea that no matter what anyone may say there is not one single way for judging good writing, therefore, those who think that writing is a simple skill that can be mastered one way in the lower grades are off base.
I also enjoyed "Directed Self-Placement” by Royer and Gilles because to me it showed Peter Elbow's idea of letting students have a strong voice in directing their own learning. After all, Elbow students will be more engaged and ultimately perform better if you let them choose their tasks. Well, it is the next logical step from choosing writing tasks, to choosing a writing class. Also, Royer and Gilles make the point that many universities only place students the way they do as a means toward efficiency. They make the point that students, ideally, know the strengths and weaknesses of their writing the best. That is a point with which I think Elbow would agree, and so do I. Mind you, I was a little surprised that only 22% of students placed themselves in the lower writing class. Unfortunately that could show a weakness in the system into maybe not every student is either as knowledgeable about their own writing ability or as honest with themselves about it.
Overall, I found the explanation for the addition of a timed essay portion to the SAT satisfactory. I think that combining multiple-choice and essay format on the same test will give students and administrators alike a better idea of the ability of each individual.
Thank you so much for your time,
James Altman
My dear readers,
The main problem at play in this week's readings is the idea of writing assessment. How should writing quality be assessed? As with most issues dealing with composition there are a number of different viewpoints. Huot in his article "Toward a New Theory of Writing Assessment” contends that in order for multiple-choice tests to have become as prevalent in assessing writing as they have, instructors must have put a great deal of faith in the testing technology. Well, that sounds to me like the same sort of thing McGee talks about with Microsoft Word and the “Invisible Grammarian”. Both cases involve people we possibly unfounded trust in a technology which may not be reliable. What I mean is, Microsoft Word’s grammar checker is not always correct. Unfortunately, my students think it is infallible, leading to numerous corrections on their papers that they are not expecting. If one piece of technology has limitations, why should we assume another does not? I understand the desire to take subjectivity out of the equation, but are multiple-choice assessments which are still subjective, owing to the fact that the person writing the exam will privilege what they feel is most important and ignore everything else really the best answer?
Huot in his other article for this week "The Literature of Direct Writing Assessment” discusses the three major ways correctly in use for assessing writing, namely, single trait, analytic, and holistic. Single trait, is just what it sounds like in that one facet of the piece of writing in question is considered above all others, its quality or lack thereof is the total basis for assessment, such as grammatical correctness. Analytic takes a couple of factors, such as grammatical correctness, and persuasiveness into account. Holistic grading, which I use, take everything into account. Of course, not everyone feels that way.
Edward White's article "An Apologia for the Timed Impromptu Essay Test” reminds us that "for most of our colleagues outside the English department and for almost all administrators, assessment means multiple-choice testing; evaluation of actual writing, whether on impromptu essay tests, term papers, or portfolios, is still generally seen as hopelessly subjective, unreliable, and arbitrary." While I argue a lot of the supposed subjectivity could be removed by more clearly defined rubrics, I can see the point from their point of view.
In his other article for this week, "The Scoring of Writing Portfolios” White makes a claim which I think is a nice wish. He says “one particular strength of portfolio assessment is its capacity to include reflection about the portfolio contents by the students submitting portfolios”. My senior year of high school, Lyon County school district instituted mandatory portfolios as a requirement for graduation beginning with that year’s seniors. To be blunt, nobody in my school had a clue in hell how to handle the new requirement. Yerington High School had never used portfolios before. So the administration improvised. No reflection went into the portfolio I submitted for graduation, at least no reflection from me. Every item in it was selected by one or more of my teachers, most of them without ever asking me if I wanted that specific item in my portfolio or not. Honestly, about one quarter of what was in my graduation portfolio, was entirely a mystery to me until about 20 minutes before my final presentation for graduation… why? Because the teachers advising me at not made up their minds when the last few items should be until that moment. And for those of you wondering how our portfolios were assessed, well, we got up in front of the school board members, talked for about 15 minutes each, were told "great job on your portfolio" and then told to quickly exit in order to make way for the next graduate. I declare to this day I still don't fully understand why most of the things that went in my portfolio were there at all.
As you might suspect I'm pretty sour on portfolios, but that's only because I still don't really understand the point of doing them, and the article really did not clear anything up for me. I'm much more enjoyed “Constructs of writing proficiency in US state and national writing assessments: Exploring variability”. Just thinking about the variability in exams and standards across the country drives home to me the idea that no matter what anyone may say there is not one single way for judging good writing, therefore, those who think that writing is a simple skill that can be mastered one way in the lower grades are off base.
I also enjoyed "Directed Self-Placement” by Royer and Gilles because to me it showed Peter Elbow's idea of letting students have a strong voice in directing their own learning. After all, Elbow students will be more engaged and ultimately perform better if you let them choose their tasks. Well, it is the next logical step from choosing writing tasks, to choosing a writing class. Also, Royer and Gilles make the point that many universities only place students the way they do as a means toward efficiency. They make the point that students, ideally, know the strengths and weaknesses of their writing the best. That is a point with which I think Elbow would agree, and so do I. Mind you, I was a little surprised that only 22% of students placed themselves in the lower writing class. Unfortunately that could show a weakness in the system into maybe not every student is either as knowledgeable about their own writing ability or as honest with themselves about it.
Overall, I found the explanation for the addition of a timed essay portion to the SAT satisfactory. I think that combining multiple-choice and essay format on the same test will give students and administrators alike a better idea of the ability of each individual.
Thank you so much for your time,
James Altman
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Number 12: for the week of April 15, 2010
My dear readers,
The main overarching issue with that I see in this week's articles is the concept of ideology. What is it? How is it expressed? What role, if any, does it or should it play in the composition classroom of the new millennium? In her article "diversity, ideology, and teaching writing" Maxine Hairston, appears to make the claim, unless I am missing something, that ideology has no place in the composition classroom. Indeed I would argue she sees no room in the composition classroom for anything other than what we might think of as strict composition, that is grammatical considerations and just simply trying to figure out what it means to write.
Okay, I can see where she gets that since composition studies is a new discipline and she's trying to show it as separate from literary studies. However I think she goes too far. As I stated earlier in one of my previous blog entries I am an outer directed theorist as defined by Bizzell. In other words, I believe that nothing happens in a vacuum. However, according to Hairston apparently composition studies takes place in a bubble where nothing else has any business being at any time. Well, forgive me for saying so but that sounds to me like guarding the tower the first and most academically shortsighted stage of "diving in" by Mina Shaughnessy. All right, Madam Hairston so you don't want the writing class to be all about politics, eh? Fine neither do I to be honest with you. But in the same breath, you also don't want it to have anything to do with literature.
Again, fine. Remember though, that as Peter Elbow points out in his article, “reflections on academic discourse: how it relates to freshman colleagues" having students just write what they are comfortable with isn't necessarily productive either. Besides, even if students only write about their own experiences, all of those experiences are still going to be influenced by the world around them, which is itself literally dripping in ideology of one form or another because the people in it have ideological beliefs whether they realize them or not.
As Berlin points out a rhetoric can never be neutral or just an arbiter of cultural disputes because it is built by people that have a stake in those disputes. Show me one person who can truly be neutral on a topic about which they care passionately. I do not think you can do it. Nor would I expect you to be able to. Freire correctly points out that "all educational practice implies a theoretical stance on the educator’s part”. In other words, even by asking my students to call me "professor Altman" as opposed to "James" I am making the choice. I make the choice in this case because that is what I am used to, and more importantly that is what I believe is proper for an educator at any level. Why do I say this? Why am I uncomfortable with my students calling me by my first name? Simply put, I cannot recall ever taking a class where a teacher said for instance "call me Jack". In 1980s East Texas, and suburban Los Angeles, that just wasn't done. In fact, the one kid I saw try it got his face slapped. That was still legal in those days.
More importantly, my family taught me that to call a teacher Mr. or Ms. or professor or Doctor. was not simply good manners but was an acknowledgment of the hard road they had to travel to get to the point to where they had enough knowledge to be able to teach little old me. To call them by their first name would be to disregard everything that they had gone through and to try to place myself on an equal footing with them to which I was not entitled. Now did that mean all my teachers were aloof? Certainly not, but they all maintained the sort of respectful distance which I now try to maintain. It is the same thing when I open my blog entries with "my dear readers" I'm not trying to be pompous or anything, it just seems to me that that is the way for one to properly open this type of correspondence. Yes, as I see it a blog is a form of correspondence I treat it no differently than the letters I send my family, the only difference is this letter can be seen by anybody with a computer so I have to watch what I say language wise a little bit more than if I was back home in the Sierra.
Like I said earlier everything has to do with ideology whether we realize it or not, and that isn't always a bad thing. After all, everything has to have a point or why bother doing it. Shor, takes Freire’s ideas and begins to apply them to a real American classroom. I must admit that was the one thing I found missing when I first read Freire’s masterstroke "pedagogy of the oppressed" for English 791 with Stephen Brown as a master’s student. I loved the book and still do reread periodically but I remember complaining more than once that I needed to see how it would work in industrialized America as opposed to the Third World. Dr. Brown, as all good educators will, used my complaint, as a springboard to stir me to action saying that in fact I should not simply whine about a lack of example but should create that example in my own teaching. Thus I have strived to do ever since.
Mind you, I wonder how many people do especially after reading "students’ goals, gatekeeping, and some questions of ethics" by Jeff Smith. Gatekeeping in its traditional exclusionary sense makes me queasy, as it does Smith. I understand that standards must be set in any profession or endeavor. That is a sort of quality control measures, if you like. It ensures that persons within a profession actually know how to do what they claim they can do. I'm all for that. The problem is gatekeeping is more often used to keep out those who might challenge or change outdated practices, or more generally cause headaches for the elite by reminding them that not everyone is elite. In this respect, I'm reminded not only of Mike Rose and his ideas that rhetoric can be exclusionary, but also of "Inventing the University". Recall that in that article we were faced with the theory that every student in every class must relearn or learn to begin with how to communicate within academic discourses. Those who were able to do so more fluently we call successful, those who struggled we call below average or any one of 100 things rose brings up as possible reasons why people are excluded from opportunities in every walk of life. At the core of all that is the idea that every system of gatekeeping because it is created by human beings who are influenced by ideology will itself contain an ideological slant which would favor some at the expense of others. While I grant you no system is perfect, do we not owe it to those whom we teach to at least understand and come to terms with the ideological harnesses with which we either hoist them up into the Academy or cast them down into the "real world"?
Thank you so much for your time,
James Altman
My dear readers,
The main overarching issue with that I see in this week's articles is the concept of ideology. What is it? How is it expressed? What role, if any, does it or should it play in the composition classroom of the new millennium? In her article "diversity, ideology, and teaching writing" Maxine Hairston, appears to make the claim, unless I am missing something, that ideology has no place in the composition classroom. Indeed I would argue she sees no room in the composition classroom for anything other than what we might think of as strict composition, that is grammatical considerations and just simply trying to figure out what it means to write.
Okay, I can see where she gets that since composition studies is a new discipline and she's trying to show it as separate from literary studies. However I think she goes too far. As I stated earlier in one of my previous blog entries I am an outer directed theorist as defined by Bizzell. In other words, I believe that nothing happens in a vacuum. However, according to Hairston apparently composition studies takes place in a bubble where nothing else has any business being at any time. Well, forgive me for saying so but that sounds to me like guarding the tower the first and most academically shortsighted stage of "diving in" by Mina Shaughnessy. All right, Madam Hairston so you don't want the writing class to be all about politics, eh? Fine neither do I to be honest with you. But in the same breath, you also don't want it to have anything to do with literature.
Again, fine. Remember though, that as Peter Elbow points out in his article, “reflections on academic discourse: how it relates to freshman colleagues" having students just write what they are comfortable with isn't necessarily productive either. Besides, even if students only write about their own experiences, all of those experiences are still going to be influenced by the world around them, which is itself literally dripping in ideology of one form or another because the people in it have ideological beliefs whether they realize them or not.
As Berlin points out a rhetoric can never be neutral or just an arbiter of cultural disputes because it is built by people that have a stake in those disputes. Show me one person who can truly be neutral on a topic about which they care passionately. I do not think you can do it. Nor would I expect you to be able to. Freire correctly points out that "all educational practice implies a theoretical stance on the educator’s part”. In other words, even by asking my students to call me "professor Altman" as opposed to "James" I am making the choice. I make the choice in this case because that is what I am used to, and more importantly that is what I believe is proper for an educator at any level. Why do I say this? Why am I uncomfortable with my students calling me by my first name? Simply put, I cannot recall ever taking a class where a teacher said for instance "call me Jack". In 1980s East Texas, and suburban Los Angeles, that just wasn't done. In fact, the one kid I saw try it got his face slapped. That was still legal in those days.
More importantly, my family taught me that to call a teacher Mr. or Ms. or professor or Doctor. was not simply good manners but was an acknowledgment of the hard road they had to travel to get to the point to where they had enough knowledge to be able to teach little old me. To call them by their first name would be to disregard everything that they had gone through and to try to place myself on an equal footing with them to which I was not entitled. Now did that mean all my teachers were aloof? Certainly not, but they all maintained the sort of respectful distance which I now try to maintain. It is the same thing when I open my blog entries with "my dear readers" I'm not trying to be pompous or anything, it just seems to me that that is the way for one to properly open this type of correspondence. Yes, as I see it a blog is a form of correspondence I treat it no differently than the letters I send my family, the only difference is this letter can be seen by anybody with a computer so I have to watch what I say language wise a little bit more than if I was back home in the Sierra.
Like I said earlier everything has to do with ideology whether we realize it or not, and that isn't always a bad thing. After all, everything has to have a point or why bother doing it. Shor, takes Freire’s ideas and begins to apply them to a real American classroom. I must admit that was the one thing I found missing when I first read Freire’s masterstroke "pedagogy of the oppressed" for English 791 with Stephen Brown as a master’s student. I loved the book and still do reread periodically but I remember complaining more than once that I needed to see how it would work in industrialized America as opposed to the Third World. Dr. Brown, as all good educators will, used my complaint, as a springboard to stir me to action saying that in fact I should not simply whine about a lack of example but should create that example in my own teaching. Thus I have strived to do ever since.
Mind you, I wonder how many people do especially after reading "students’ goals, gatekeeping, and some questions of ethics" by Jeff Smith. Gatekeeping in its traditional exclusionary sense makes me queasy, as it does Smith. I understand that standards must be set in any profession or endeavor. That is a sort of quality control measures, if you like. It ensures that persons within a profession actually know how to do what they claim they can do. I'm all for that. The problem is gatekeeping is more often used to keep out those who might challenge or change outdated practices, or more generally cause headaches for the elite by reminding them that not everyone is elite. In this respect, I'm reminded not only of Mike Rose and his ideas that rhetoric can be exclusionary, but also of "Inventing the University". Recall that in that article we were faced with the theory that every student in every class must relearn or learn to begin with how to communicate within academic discourses. Those who were able to do so more fluently we call successful, those who struggled we call below average or any one of 100 things rose brings up as possible reasons why people are excluded from opportunities in every walk of life. At the core of all that is the idea that every system of gatekeeping because it is created by human beings who are influenced by ideology will itself contain an ideological slant which would favor some at the expense of others. While I grant you no system is perfect, do we not owe it to those whom we teach to at least understand and come to terms with the ideological harnesses with which we either hoist them up into the Academy or cast them down into the "real world"?
Thank you so much for your time,
James Altman
Monday, April 5, 2010
Dr. Jablonski,
I posted my revised proposal to my blog and also emailed it to you. I intend to submit an electronic copy in the Webcampus assignment section except I don't see a place to do so. Every place I try just lets me VIEW my OLD proposal not SUBMIT my NEW one. What am I doing wrong?
Thank you so much for your time,
James Altman
I posted my revised proposal to my blog and also emailed it to you. I intend to submit an electronic copy in the Webcampus assignment section except I don't see a place to do so. Every place I try just lets me VIEW my OLD proposal not SUBMIT my NEW one. What am I doing wrong?
Thank you so much for your time,
James Altman
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Here's a revised proposal...enjoy.
Title: Taming the dragon: effective use of Dragon NaturallySpeaking speech
recognition software.
Scholars in computers and writing have studied how such applications as word processing software affect the writing process. One under-examined area, however, is software applications that aid students with disabilities. Feng and Sears in their article “interaction techniques for users with spinal cord injuries: a speech-based solution”, make what I take to be eye-opening claims about the voice recognition software Dragon NaturallySpeaking. They claim seven out of every eight initial users eventually abandon the program in short order, due to slow rate of production (17 to 20 words per minute, as opposed to 30 words per minute typing by hand, or 120 to
150 words per minute in casual conversation). Moreover, they claim that upwards
of 75% of an individual user's time is spent simply in correcting recognition
errors. Moreover, other issues such as the need for privacy during dictation
can also lead to abandonment of the program by inexperienced users according to
Wobbrock and Myers. I do not deny any of this. Moreover, I am an experienced user of Dragon NaturallySpeaking software having used five of its ten versions so far.
Voice recognition software is not a miracle worker. However, it is my intention to show that with the proper expectations, Dragon NaturallySpeaking can be a boon to those who are willing to employ it. I do not intend to be exclusionary in this piece. I intend to show through research and my own experiences how Dragon NaturallySpeaking software can be used as a tool of universal access not only for the physically disabled like myself, but for everyone with a passion for writing. Through this paper, I will be able to show many able-bodied persons, who might never think of using voice recognition software, the benefits of attempting it in their daily lives. I intend to show through scholarly research and my own experience what I believe are the proper techniques for employing Dragon NaturallySpeaking software most effectively including methods of training the device including employing training texts which users are encouraged to read into Dragon when beginning using the program but many users do not do leading to needlessly poor speech recognition. Learning to avoid pitfalls with Dragon will help to avoid many of the speech recognition errors which often frustrate beginning users especially those who are used to typing by hand.
Therefore, my audience is not simply physically disabled students like myself
but anyone involved in English composition or the other humanities in which
frequent writing is a necessity. In particular I believe special education teachers will find my work most useful as they try to integrate new technologies into their classrooms in order to help students express themselves who might otherwise be unable to do so. Moreover, I believe the teachers of composition at the 101 and 102 level will also find my analysis useful as they increasingly find themselves both dealing with a diverse student population and with less time in which to grade papers and provide feedback to students. I believe voice recognition software like Dragon NaturallySpeaking can be a great assistance in all these areas. When properly acclimated to voice recognition software anyone who loves to do or is required to do a great deal of writing will eventually find it a great aid in what they are doing.
Title: Taming the dragon: effective use of Dragon NaturallySpeaking speech
recognition software.
Scholars in computers and writing have studied how such applications as word processing software affect the writing process. One under-examined area, however, is software applications that aid students with disabilities. Feng and Sears in their article “interaction techniques for users with spinal cord injuries: a speech-based solution”, make what I take to be eye-opening claims about the voice recognition software Dragon NaturallySpeaking. They claim seven out of every eight initial users eventually abandon the program in short order, due to slow rate of production (17 to 20 words per minute, as opposed to 30 words per minute typing by hand, or 120 to
150 words per minute in casual conversation). Moreover, they claim that upwards
of 75% of an individual user's time is spent simply in correcting recognition
errors. Moreover, other issues such as the need for privacy during dictation
can also lead to abandonment of the program by inexperienced users according to
Wobbrock and Myers. I do not deny any of this. Moreover, I am an experienced user of Dragon NaturallySpeaking software having used five of its ten versions so far.
Voice recognition software is not a miracle worker. However, it is my intention to show that with the proper expectations, Dragon NaturallySpeaking can be a boon to those who are willing to employ it. I do not intend to be exclusionary in this piece. I intend to show through research and my own experiences how Dragon NaturallySpeaking software can be used as a tool of universal access not only for the physically disabled like myself, but for everyone with a passion for writing. Through this paper, I will be able to show many able-bodied persons, who might never think of using voice recognition software, the benefits of attempting it in their daily lives. I intend to show through scholarly research and my own experience what I believe are the proper techniques for employing Dragon NaturallySpeaking software most effectively including methods of training the device including employing training texts which users are encouraged to read into Dragon when beginning using the program but many users do not do leading to needlessly poor speech recognition. Learning to avoid pitfalls with Dragon will help to avoid many of the speech recognition errors which often frustrate beginning users especially those who are used to typing by hand.
Therefore, my audience is not simply physically disabled students like myself
but anyone involved in English composition or the other humanities in which
frequent writing is a necessity. In particular I believe special education teachers will find my work most useful as they try to integrate new technologies into their classrooms in order to help students express themselves who might otherwise be unable to do so. Moreover, I believe the teachers of composition at the 101 and 102 level will also find my analysis useful as they increasingly find themselves both dealing with a diverse student population and with less time in which to grade papers and provide feedback to students. I believe voice recognition software like Dragon NaturallySpeaking can be a great assistance in all these areas. When properly acclimated to voice recognition software anyone who loves to do or is required to do a great deal of writing will eventually find it a great aid in what they are doing.
Number 11: for the week of April 8, 2010
My dear readers,
The main topic at issue in this week's readings is the idea of how to teach writing. Which of the myriad of competing theories is best? Is there one theory so pedagogically sound that it would completely cover every conceivable writing situation for every conceivable student? In fact, can writing even be taught?
First of all, let me go ahead and say that I believe writing can be taught. I have run across few things in life that cannot be taught. How to teach it, now that's the kicker. Personally, I do not believe that there is one single theory of "proper" writing pedagogy. Writing is an activity that expresses itself so many different ways in so many different genres that it seems to me both simplistic and more than a little arrogant to say that any single theory is so supreme that all others should be done away with. I ask you, show me one area of life where that is the case. I'll wager you cannot do it, because no area of life is as clear cut as all that.
"Post process pedagogy: a philosophical exercise" deals with that same idea. It considers whether writing can even be taught, and after coming to the conclusion that it can advocates attempting and even mixing a variety of approaches. When I had said in class that the writing process is "whatever works" that is essentially what I mean. In other words, one size does not fit all students. Mind you, I do believe that it is possible and likely for each individual student to find a writing process that works for them. Moreover, once they find it I think they should stick to it unless it stops providing satisfying results and personal fulfillment which I see as two of writings main goals. This is part of the reason why at the start of every paper writing cycle, I give my English 102 students one "drafting day". When they come in on those days, they are free to use any generative process they choose: outlining, concept mapping, clustering, or anything else they can think of. Nearly all of my students, by their own admission, have never yet been given the freedom to explore the writing process and find out what works for them. They've always just been force-fed someone else's prescriptive program. I believe I mentioned earlier in the semester about the girl who asked me if I required a concept map with the first paper. See, that's what I mean most students don't see things like concept mapping as tools to help them in the writing process. Instead they see them as one more hoop they have to jump through to keep the professor from breathing fire down their neck. I never want my students to have to feel like they have to do things exactly the way I do them if that is not what works best for them.
In his article "contemporary composition: the major pedagogical theories" Berlin has it right when he says that we are teaching a view of reality when we are teaching writing. That is completely true because writing involves generating, assimilating and then communicating notions about the world. Even if we don't want to go that far we could say that we are teaching a view of what writing and academia are every time we teach writing. That is because what we as individual writing teachers choose to emphasize or leave out of our teaching will on some level shape the students that emerge from our classes. I do not think that this is done maliciously. I simply think that each writing teacher is using the skills and examples they have built up over a lifetime. Parker J. Palmer in The Courage to Teach says the teachers must teach from who they are. That is why I teach writing using not only literary and composition examples but also examples from history, sports, and even Saturday morning cartoons. I teach this way because that is who I am. Whatever your method, or philosophical slant if you show your students you genuinely believe in the "bill of goods" you are "selling them" they usually respond well in my albeit limited experience. I also enjoyed the idea of Berlin talking about teaching writing in terms of a view of reality because it made me think of his earlier article about current traditional rhetoric and how constrained and formulaic most of that is.
I like the idea Downs proposes in his article about renaming and re-envisioning first-year composition as introduction to writing studies. If we did that, maybe more students would be able to learn about writing is about effective communication and self-expression not just red ink on paper, letter grades, and sleepless nights. Maybe then we could teach students about the principles behind rhetoric and how to be persuasive without them worrying about the next hoop they have to jump through grade wise. Mind you, I can see how it would be difficult to get something like that off the ground since most people outside of composition only care about visible results like the number of typos in a paper.
Along those same lines one particular point mentioned in Fulkerson's article "composition at the turn of the 21st century" particularly strikes me. That is the idea that many teachers try on some level to prepare their students for "the" academic discourse community… yeah, like there is only one. Are you kidding? There are dozens at least. Every department of every college qualifies as one. Every discipline from engineering to theater needs and wants different things out of its writers. Add to that the fact that every composition classroom is slightly different because no two instructors are identical and you may get the impression, as I do, that the most of composition teacher can do most of the time is to give his or her students experience with as many different types of writing as the constraints of the composition class will allow. Of course it is difficult to do this in many cases because most composition students are so new to the college environment they haven't a clue what academic discipline or discourse community they want to have anything to do with. Therefore, while I as a composition teacher might hopefully expose them at some point to types of writing they will eventually have to do in their chosen majors they will invariably see any other kind of writing that I show them as worthless. Indeed, if they don't have a major yet they might see every kind of writing I show them as worthless for anything other than a grade on a transcript. I've got to be honest, no one ever had to explain the value of writing to me. When you are as physically isolated as I have been at many points in my life you quickly learn to make full use of any tool you can find that helps connect you to others.
I have to admit of all the articles for this week "what works in teaching composition" was the least understandable to me and therefore the least helpful. On a different note, the fact that they found so many different theories present in the studies they examined testifies to the state of flux characterizing this type of pedagogy.
Thank you so much for your time,
James Altman
My dear readers,
The main topic at issue in this week's readings is the idea of how to teach writing. Which of the myriad of competing theories is best? Is there one theory so pedagogically sound that it would completely cover every conceivable writing situation for every conceivable student? In fact, can writing even be taught?
First of all, let me go ahead and say that I believe writing can be taught. I have run across few things in life that cannot be taught. How to teach it, now that's the kicker. Personally, I do not believe that there is one single theory of "proper" writing pedagogy. Writing is an activity that expresses itself so many different ways in so many different genres that it seems to me both simplistic and more than a little arrogant to say that any single theory is so supreme that all others should be done away with. I ask you, show me one area of life where that is the case. I'll wager you cannot do it, because no area of life is as clear cut as all that.
"Post process pedagogy: a philosophical exercise" deals with that same idea. It considers whether writing can even be taught, and after coming to the conclusion that it can advocates attempting and even mixing a variety of approaches. When I had said in class that the writing process is "whatever works" that is essentially what I mean. In other words, one size does not fit all students. Mind you, I do believe that it is possible and likely for each individual student to find a writing process that works for them. Moreover, once they find it I think they should stick to it unless it stops providing satisfying results and personal fulfillment which I see as two of writings main goals. This is part of the reason why at the start of every paper writing cycle, I give my English 102 students one "drafting day". When they come in on those days, they are free to use any generative process they choose: outlining, concept mapping, clustering, or anything else they can think of. Nearly all of my students, by their own admission, have never yet been given the freedom to explore the writing process and find out what works for them. They've always just been force-fed someone else's prescriptive program. I believe I mentioned earlier in the semester about the girl who asked me if I required a concept map with the first paper. See, that's what I mean most students don't see things like concept mapping as tools to help them in the writing process. Instead they see them as one more hoop they have to jump through to keep the professor from breathing fire down their neck. I never want my students to have to feel like they have to do things exactly the way I do them if that is not what works best for them.
In his article "contemporary composition: the major pedagogical theories" Berlin has it right when he says that we are teaching a view of reality when we are teaching writing. That is completely true because writing involves generating, assimilating and then communicating notions about the world. Even if we don't want to go that far we could say that we are teaching a view of what writing and academia are every time we teach writing. That is because what we as individual writing teachers choose to emphasize or leave out of our teaching will on some level shape the students that emerge from our classes. I do not think that this is done maliciously. I simply think that each writing teacher is using the skills and examples they have built up over a lifetime. Parker J. Palmer in The Courage to Teach says the teachers must teach from who they are. That is why I teach writing using not only literary and composition examples but also examples from history, sports, and even Saturday morning cartoons. I teach this way because that is who I am. Whatever your method, or philosophical slant if you show your students you genuinely believe in the "bill of goods" you are "selling them" they usually respond well in my albeit limited experience. I also enjoyed the idea of Berlin talking about teaching writing in terms of a view of reality because it made me think of his earlier article about current traditional rhetoric and how constrained and formulaic most of that is.
I like the idea Downs proposes in his article about renaming and re-envisioning first-year composition as introduction to writing studies. If we did that, maybe more students would be able to learn about writing is about effective communication and self-expression not just red ink on paper, letter grades, and sleepless nights. Maybe then we could teach students about the principles behind rhetoric and how to be persuasive without them worrying about the next hoop they have to jump through grade wise. Mind you, I can see how it would be difficult to get something like that off the ground since most people outside of composition only care about visible results like the number of typos in a paper.
Along those same lines one particular point mentioned in Fulkerson's article "composition at the turn of the 21st century" particularly strikes me. That is the idea that many teachers try on some level to prepare their students for "the" academic discourse community… yeah, like there is only one. Are you kidding? There are dozens at least. Every department of every college qualifies as one. Every discipline from engineering to theater needs and wants different things out of its writers. Add to that the fact that every composition classroom is slightly different because no two instructors are identical and you may get the impression, as I do, that the most of composition teacher can do most of the time is to give his or her students experience with as many different types of writing as the constraints of the composition class will allow. Of course it is difficult to do this in many cases because most composition students are so new to the college environment they haven't a clue what academic discipline or discourse community they want to have anything to do with. Therefore, while I as a composition teacher might hopefully expose them at some point to types of writing they will eventually have to do in their chosen majors they will invariably see any other kind of writing that I show them as worthless. Indeed, if they don't have a major yet they might see every kind of writing I show them as worthless for anything other than a grade on a transcript. I've got to be honest, no one ever had to explain the value of writing to me. When you are as physically isolated as I have been at many points in my life you quickly learn to make full use of any tool you can find that helps connect you to others.
I have to admit of all the articles for this week "what works in teaching composition" was the least understandable to me and therefore the least helpful. On a different note, the fact that they found so many different theories present in the studies they examined testifies to the state of flux characterizing this type of pedagogy.
Thank you so much for your time,
James Altman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)