Number 10: for the week of March 25, 2010

My dear readers,

Generally speaking, the theme of this week's articles is computers in education. More specifically, however, they deal with what difference can computers make in a classroom and who gets to decide. I have enjoyed most of the articles we have read this semester. That being said, this week's offerings are, by and large, some of my favorites. That is because unlike some of the subjects we have talked about, like feminist theory, computers in education is a subject I deal with every day. Just for reference this entry which you are reading was constructed from the very start on a computer using software which transcribes my voice directly into Microsoft Word or any other similar program I choose.
Mind you, in that regard I am one of the lucky ones as I shall explain.
"On divides and interfaces" mentions, among other things, statistics of which I was completely unaware. I had not realized that barely one out of five persons with a disability had regular access to computers and the Internet of the kind which I enjoy.

Mind you, not that I haven't experienced that. My hometown, Yerington Nevada, was not only stuck out in the middle of godforsaken nowhere but was also, on the whole, exceedingly poor, and constantly strapped for cash even in the best of times. I don't know what it was like technology wise for those who graduated as part of the class of ‘98 here in the Las Vegas area, but I imagine they had it better than we did. Most of our teachers still did their attendance on carbon paper. That was also how I got any class notes. Virtually everything was done with paper and pencil. That meant I had to stay after school many more days than the average person just simply to get my schoolwork done. It got to the point where my teachers finally agreed to start giving me oral exams. (Thank God for that).

You could count on one hand the number of computers in our school outside of either the administrative offices (which had like two in each) or our one single computer classroom (which had 14 or 15, no more than about eight of which ever worked at any one time). I still remember how to run a computer through MS-DOS (how pitiful is that?) Oh, and if you're wondering why I didn't just use my computer at home it's because I didn't own one. We could not afford one and could not convince any state agency to help us pay for one at the time. I wrote all my papers throughout junior high and high school on a half worn out electric typewriter. Sometimes I wonder how I ever made it this far.

Of course, it is not only the disabled who often lack access to necessary technology but any minority or underprivileged group. Here we see a connection to Rose's ideas about society labeling those who don't fit the mainstream ideal as deficient. Nearly every one of my high school classmates was told upon graduation about just how much they would have to struggle to succeed in college because of what Yerington could not afford to provide for them. The Internet can be a wonderful vehicle for sharing and disseminating ideas but not if you never encounter it. That's the point of the article fewer people encounter this supposedly universal communication technology than the average person might believe.

I like the idea in Harris' article of socially constructed meaning and that each person must reach out to other communicators, by means, in this case, of computers and the Internet. The mentioning of the social constructionist thought is appropriate because if anything in life is constructed in a vacuum that something is not constructed online. Anyone roaming through cyberspace, could conceivably read this entry I am composing right now and comment on it. That hypothetical comment could lead me to post something else, and so on and so on and on. That's where scaffolding comes in I think one thing builds off of another. No, in this case were not talking about specific skills, but, still, ideas building off one another are just as important.

The notion of building and shaping ideas also comes through in McGee's article about Microsoft Word as a sort of surrogate English teacher. I must admit I see it everyday in almost everything I write. If I accidentally use the wrong word or leave a sentence fragment it lets me know. Mind you, I sometimes wonder who programmed the damn thing because some of the grammatical suggestions it makes just blow my mind. For instance, almost every time I put down "are you okay with this?" Microsoft Word wants to change "are" to "is". I guess I can see where something like spell or grammar check might make the traditional English teacher feel threatened, however if students are able to pick up even a little basic grammar from something like that isn't that a good thing? Actually, since I've started using voice transcription software I've realized I don't have to worry much about my spelling anymore. This is because the program either gets the word right and spells it correctly or just simply puts down the wrong word entirely and then I correct it by selecting the proper word. I must admit I liked that feature from the first moment I saw it. I've never been a very good speller.

Mind you I will admit I have learned how to spell certain words simply by seeing them come up on the screen over and over and over again. While I enjoyed Mueller's article, I have to admit I don't really get the difference between backchannel and underlife. I mean I get the point about things like instant messaging potentially being a distraction and that they fit into backchannel, if I'm reading the article correctly, but I don't get what all the extra fuss is about. As the article points out before computerized instant messaging people just passed notes or whispered to each other. Hell that's what we used to do. Whether hand written or electronic it simply up to the teacher to try to set a tone in his or her classroom where such things are minimized even if they can't be stopped.

I have often seen firsthand what Sullivan talks about in "Taking Control of the Page" when she says that not all teachers of writing have embraced the computer in a way that perhaps would be more beneficial to them. I agree with the explanation she gives. As I think about it, I'm not sure why you wouldn't embrace the computer and related technologies to teach writing (of course I say that, knowing that I have to embrace such technology in order to teach writing whether I want to do so or not). Maybe some people just aren't comfortable teaching with a tool that was not really around when they were beginning their education. In other words, maybe they think "well I did fine without the computer, why can't they?" Maybe some people just love the idea of writing all over papers in red pen or pencil. I have even heard of professors who will not use computers in their classrooms because they say the typing is too loud. To that, I say either invest in the kind of voice recognition software I use or wear earmuffs. I had a student asked me last semester, why it was that more professors would not accept papers submitted over with campus but instead continued to insist on having students print out several copies of every final draft. I didn't know what to tell her then and I still don't now. The only thing I can think of is maybe those teachers are so used to the old Harvard model and current traditional rhetoric, in other words, the old way of doing things whatever form it takes that they just can't break away.
Thank you so much for your time,

James Altman