Interesting reading about Storyspace and mapping hyperlinks and trying to create technological tools that mimic thought processes. I was reminded of Mark Lombardi - a guy I met years back - who made art out of the complicated links in the Savings and Loan & Iran Contra Scandals of the 1980's. A good story about him is here:
"http://www.boingboing.net/2003/12/09/friendster_or_foeste.html"
I've had numerous notions and ideas over the years about a better interface that would allow from more organtic, visual and kinesthetic computers. A hard drive like a "memory palace" or a loci:
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_loci"
...that could be created on a computer to mimic a loci in one's own mind would be a wonderful tool for creative organization - particularly since your mental loci could have a harddrive backup!
Cheers,
DMCG
PS Sorry these links don't seem to work properly...
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Seeing and Writing
I found Bolter's article very interesting. I've never appreciated the fine craftsmanship of typographers. I take for granted that when I hit print, the image out of the printer will mirror what is on the screen. I don't think twice about the intricate details that make this happen.
I also appreciate the warning against mixing display fonts with book fonts. Often I am bored with Times New Roman, Arial, and Garamond so I change the font only to hear the recipient of my document say they couldn't read it very well on the screen. I'll need to suppress my urge to merge the world of exotic and conservative onto one page.
On a different note...Before reading this assignment, I realized that my editing skills are much sharper than my writing skills. (This saddened me.) Whether words are on a printed page or an electronic screen, I can make editing suggestions with ease. However, this is not an easy process with my own writing, especially when I view it on the screen.
Can anyone relate? I think this subject can be loosely tied to this reading.
I also appreciate the warning against mixing display fonts with book fonts. Often I am bored with Times New Roman, Arial, and Garamond so I change the font only to hear the recipient of my document say they couldn't read it very well on the screen. I'll need to suppress my urge to merge the world of exotic and conservative onto one page.
On a different note...Before reading this assignment, I realized that my editing skills are much sharper than my writing skills. (This saddened me.) Whether words are on a printed page or an electronic screen, I can make editing suggestions with ease. However, this is not an easy process with my own writing, especially when I view it on the screen.
Can anyone relate? I think this subject can be loosely tied to this reading.
Let's Keep Blogging & Technology in Perspective
After digesting this week’s readings, I'm wondering if humans are placating to technology? Okay, I’m going to digress for a bit on the topic of sensory overload. At least once a week, I try to meditate on this topic. As a graduate student, I find it difficult to live in the moment – the coursework alone does not allow for it. I have to admit with my various roles and responsibilities that I’m so good at multitasking these days that I probably do it my sleep.
In the case of technology, I think as students we have become so driven in our need to consume all things technological that we have become even better experts at denying the real consequences of overloading our minds. These consequences can more than likely cause bombardment, burn out, and at some point the possibility of failure!
I love the idea of mastering the latest technology. It’s wonderful to know that as writers, we don’t have to reinvent the wheel to come up with a good piece of writing. But, are we really better off, if obtaining all these things and acquiring all this knowledge compromises our senses or our ability to function?
I think it’s important to start acknowledging this bombardment - if just to verbalize that a real problem exists. Let’s face it - our minds cannot be copied to the nearest hard drive, uploaded to the nearest jump-drive, or backed up to the nearest server. The mind happens to be our most precious resource and overloading it for the sake of not wanting to feel left behind is not only overwhelming, but it can also be dangerous. Like everything else we have discussed in this course – blogging, using technology, and loading the mind with information should be done at our own risk, but more importantly, in moderation. First and foremost, we are writers. We need technology to do our jobs; however, our ability to strike a balance between being on the cutting edge and controlling what we do is critical to our sanity, and thus to our success.
Baby we’ve come a long way.
Patience
In the case of technology, I think as students we have become so driven in our need to consume all things technological that we have become even better experts at denying the real consequences of overloading our minds. These consequences can more than likely cause bombardment, burn out, and at some point the possibility of failure!
I love the idea of mastering the latest technology. It’s wonderful to know that as writers, we don’t have to reinvent the wheel to come up with a good piece of writing. But, are we really better off, if obtaining all these things and acquiring all this knowledge compromises our senses or our ability to function?
I think it’s important to start acknowledging this bombardment - if just to verbalize that a real problem exists. Let’s face it - our minds cannot be copied to the nearest hard drive, uploaded to the nearest jump-drive, or backed up to the nearest server. The mind happens to be our most precious resource and overloading it for the sake of not wanting to feel left behind is not only overwhelming, but it can also be dangerous. Like everything else we have discussed in this course – blogging, using technology, and loading the mind with information should be done at our own risk, but more importantly, in moderation. First and foremost, we are writers. We need technology to do our jobs; however, our ability to strike a balance between being on the cutting edge and controlling what we do is critical to our sanity, and thus to our success.
Baby we’ve come a long way.
Patience
Is it all it's cracked up to be?
Ok, let me start out this post by stating unequivocally that I LOVE technology. I could not live without my computer and DSL connection.
That being said, let me just say that despite the promise of the V. Bush and Nelson articles, I'm not sure technology as THEY invisioned it has lived up to its forseen potential, let alone its unforseen consequences.
Both articles, to me, seemed to be relying on a model that envisioned computers and the potential they hold to be relied upon mostly by academics and in business. There is nothing wrong with that -- especially when you consider the costs they were projecting for technology. What would Bush think about the readily accessible computing power of 2007? So my question is, have we lived up to their own somewhat narrow definitions of what it is computers are supposed to do?
I'm not sure they do. Both talked about the usefulness of computers in doing research and holding information. Both spoke optimistically about the whole of human knowledge being available through desktop efficiency. As I sit in a library and slog through research articles, let me say that dream has yet to be realized. Despite the optimistic picture of at home research presented by another poster, electronic sources make life easier only when they are available. The great bulk of previous literature is not available online and still requires a trip to physically touch, look for, and examine hard copy. While strides are being made to make more and more available online, that doesn't begin to touch the vast sum of material that has not been.
In addition, the amount of information that IS available is enormous. Just finding what you think might help you is daunting. Is there such a thing as too much information, hyperlinked or not, to be able to slog through? Do we have to then rely on other people and their interpretations to filter for us without critically looking at the way they have decided to filter the information? (for example -- has anyone tried to find something using a database that tries to "help" you find what you are looking for? some amusing results there)
I guess where I am going here -- other than a complaint about the number of hours I've spent in the library -- is that while we are beginning to realize some of the potential dreamed of in 1945 we have a long way to go yet and when we get there -- will we really know what it is we have?
That being said, let me just say that despite the promise of the V. Bush and Nelson articles, I'm not sure technology as THEY invisioned it has lived up to its forseen potential, let alone its unforseen consequences.
Both articles, to me, seemed to be relying on a model that envisioned computers and the potential they hold to be relied upon mostly by academics and in business. There is nothing wrong with that -- especially when you consider the costs they were projecting for technology. What would Bush think about the readily accessible computing power of 2007? So my question is, have we lived up to their own somewhat narrow definitions of what it is computers are supposed to do?
I'm not sure they do. Both talked about the usefulness of computers in doing research and holding information. Both spoke optimistically about the whole of human knowledge being available through desktop efficiency. As I sit in a library and slog through research articles, let me say that dream has yet to be realized. Despite the optimistic picture of at home research presented by another poster, electronic sources make life easier only when they are available. The great bulk of previous literature is not available online and still requires a trip to physically touch, look for, and examine hard copy. While strides are being made to make more and more available online, that doesn't begin to touch the vast sum of material that has not been.
In addition, the amount of information that IS available is enormous. Just finding what you think might help you is daunting. Is there such a thing as too much information, hyperlinked or not, to be able to slog through? Do we have to then rely on other people and their interpretations to filter for us without critically looking at the way they have decided to filter the information? (for example -- has anyone tried to find something using a database that tries to "help" you find what you are looking for? some amusing results there)
I guess where I am going here -- other than a complaint about the number of hours I've spent in the library -- is that while we are beginning to realize some of the potential dreamed of in 1945 we have a long way to go yet and when we get there -- will we really know what it is we have?
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Take technology personally
While reading this week's selections, I decided to step outside my previously pessimistic perspective and ask the questions, "What do I like about technological evolution, and what is my real attitude toward new technology?" Since our articles have allowed us to trace some of the evolution, I thought I would try to trace my attitude from an historical perspective as well.
1. Spring 1995-- The first time a professor posted semester grades solely on the Internet. I was livid. After all, I had to go to the same building every day, so why couldn't he just post it outside his office using the last 5 digits of my SSN like always? The fact that our connection speed ranged between 2600 and 5200 bps may have had something to do with my frustration, but I truly saw no real benefit to the Internet. Hah!
2. Fall 1995--My first experience with instant messaging. They didn't call it IM back then, and with good reason. The messages actually appeared character by character, scrolling across the screen. I thought it was so great. I could communicate with my friends at other colleges in "real time." Of course, all it took was a sarcastic fraternity brother to put things in perspective. One evening while reading over my shoulder, he declared, "Wow! Just think, maybe someday they'll invent a device that you can talk into, and your friends can have a similar device on their end, and you can have a live conversation and actually hear each other!" Point taken (but I still liked it).
3. Summer 1998--I get my first pager. My company would use it to update us on sales call information and to request that we contact the office. Of course, I had no cell phone, so every time I got paged with a call request, I would have to find a pay phone. Ah, the convenience of technology. I did like the automatic sports and weather updates, though.
Flash forward to today.
--I'm furious if a company or organization does not have a website. On top of that, it better be user friendly with myriad ways to accomplish the same goal.
--I dropped the pager long ago and (obviously) now have a cell phone. I don't use it a whole lot, but I can't imagine not having one now, so that says something. I did somehow manage to live 22 years without a cell phone having never felt a void in my life.
--I just purchased my first HD-ready TV. I don't actually subscribe to any HD programming. I just want to be "ready." It doesn't feel like a need (yet).
I guess this last fact illustrates my point. I think we should all approach technology personally. What do I do? What does this new technology do? Can it help me? I'm always cautious with new technologies, trying to stay above the hype and waiting for others to try it, identify, and (hopefully) work out the kinks.
1. Spring 1995-- The first time a professor posted semester grades solely on the Internet. I was livid. After all, I had to go to the same building every day, so why couldn't he just post it outside his office using the last 5 digits of my SSN like always? The fact that our connection speed ranged between 2600 and 5200 bps may have had something to do with my frustration, but I truly saw no real benefit to the Internet. Hah!
2. Fall 1995--My first experience with instant messaging. They didn't call it IM back then, and with good reason. The messages actually appeared character by character, scrolling across the screen. I thought it was so great. I could communicate with my friends at other colleges in "real time." Of course, all it took was a sarcastic fraternity brother to put things in perspective. One evening while reading over my shoulder, he declared, "Wow! Just think, maybe someday they'll invent a device that you can talk into, and your friends can have a similar device on their end, and you can have a live conversation and actually hear each other!" Point taken (but I still liked it).
3. Summer 1998--I get my first pager. My company would use it to update us on sales call information and to request that we contact the office. Of course, I had no cell phone, so every time I got paged with a call request, I would have to find a pay phone. Ah, the convenience of technology. I did like the automatic sports and weather updates, though.
Flash forward to today.
--I'm furious if a company or organization does not have a website. On top of that, it better be user friendly with myriad ways to accomplish the same goal.
--I dropped the pager long ago and (obviously) now have a cell phone. I don't use it a whole lot, but I can't imagine not having one now, so that says something. I did somehow manage to live 22 years without a cell phone having never felt a void in my life.
--I just purchased my first HD-ready TV. I don't actually subscribe to any HD programming. I just want to be "ready." It doesn't feel like a need (yet).
I guess this last fact illustrates my point. I think we should all approach technology personally. What do I do? What does this new technology do? Can it help me? I'm always cautious with new technologies, trying to stay above the hype and waiting for others to try it, identify, and (hopefully) work out the kinks.
Pelosi and Blogging
On my drive to work this morning I heard an interesting discussion about Nancy Pelosi and her embracing of the blogging community. I thought it an apt topic for our own blog considering we are contemplating a blog's uses and purposes. Where do blogs fit in terms of political activism? My book review will be discussing this activism topic, so expect a more detailed analysis later. For now, check out the following article about Pelosi and her encouragement for blogging: http://www.townhall.com/News/NewsArticle.aspx?contentGUID=d6d86436-4a5d-4f8e-85a4-8f46c94a5c2d
Monday, January 29, 2007
Evolution of Technology
I believe that as students (and we stay students forever, no matter our profession), we must constantly strive to understand technology as it evolves. Concern rightfully exists that there may come a point where there is too much knowledge. As Ruth mentioned in her blog, when referring to Bush, it becomes too difficult to "know everything." However, we do not have to memorize everything, or even know how to access everything. Where would the excitement in life be if we, as humans, were omniscient?
I believe that the pursuit of knowledge, be it formal or, as Nelson mentions, for entertainment, really is the ultimate drive for most people. The web we have today, and the possiblities that exist in the future for where technology can take us, are breathtaking. Let's just hope that, as V. Bush said in his article, we will use our ever-evolving technologies "to live healthily" as opposed to "throwing masses of people against one another with cruel weapons." Unfortunately, we have seen in our own generation where that can lead.
I believe that the pursuit of knowledge, be it formal or, as Nelson mentions, for entertainment, really is the ultimate drive for most people. The web we have today, and the possiblities that exist in the future for where technology can take us, are breathtaking. Let's just hope that, as V. Bush said in his article, we will use our ever-evolving technologies "to live healthily" as opposed to "throwing masses of people against one another with cruel weapons." Unfortunately, we have seen in our own generation where that can lead.
Hypertext: Theories and Reality
It was interesting to read about the theories which must have led to our word processing, spreadsheets, and hypertext. We take these electronic skills for granted, but they were all dreams in 1945, 1965, and 1988.
Now, as Bush, Nelson, and Joyce predicted elements of and Bolter almost describes, we can set our own typeface, work on multiple windows at once, move text, delete text, add images, move images, set up a spreadsheet to automatically make calculations in rows and columns, and multiple other wonderful tasks made possible by electronics. We can refer to other documents with hypertext, then transfer back. Text and images are tickets to other cyber-"places". As Ruth says, we can research the world almost without ever leaving home, print our results or publish them.
Publishing now has a new meaning - contributing to global knowledge.
Now, as Bush, Nelson, and Joyce predicted elements of and Bolter almost describes, we can set our own typeface, work on multiple windows at once, move text, delete text, add images, move images, set up a spreadsheet to automatically make calculations in rows and columns, and multiple other wonderful tasks made possible by electronics. We can refer to other documents with hypertext, then transfer back. Text and images are tickets to other cyber-"places". As Ruth says, we can research the world almost without ever leaving home, print our results or publish them.
Publishing now has a new meaning - contributing to global knowledge.
Seeing and Writing, Hypertext, and Quark Express
Somehow, from a merging of this week's readings, I'm thinking "Quark Express" is the closest application that I've ever used allowing for links, varying typestyles, text, visual aids, etc. to be assembled in a non-linear fashion. Has anyone ever used Quark? But even this seems far from the early visions that Bush and others had in mind. Apparently, there are other programs or ways to accomplish these goals, and I am quite excited by the possibilities that this week's readings suggest. I must say that "Siren Shapes" offers an interesting platform for writing instruction, though I think that Mr. Joyce used a lot of parenthetical explanations when he could have just made his writing clear and to the point. But hey, that was the 80s, right? (big hair-- big words:D)
Typography & Technological Nostalgia
I enjoyed this week's readings--especially "Seeing and Writing" by Bolter. While I find his discussion of typography in print and in an electronic environment to be interesting, I was more struck by this notion of "technological nostalgia" that he mentions. The editions of Chaucer printed by Morris and Kunth's application of math to typography were made possible with the aid of computers, prompting Bolter's observation that such work "directs our energies away from appreciating the electronic space in its own right--a space in which the subtleties of type size and style may no longer be important to the writer's or the reader's vision of the text" (NMR 682).
I think many people do care about the text they read or write on the web. I know I went through a period where I experimented with all sorts of fonts and incorrectly used the display sort in inappropriate, lengthy pieces. But the electronic spaces I became familiar with led to my appreciation of what I read/wrote looked like. I can't stand to read more than a sentence or two of the cursive fonts in the same way that I feel using ALL CAPS or an excessive use of bold is borderline rude. I think I've become more aware of the presentation of text thanks to the web, not less so.
Perhaps I've missed Bolter's point. I realize that he was writing in '91, when our displays weren't so crisp and capable of elegant, non-pixellated fonts. Maybe I'm just part of a marginal group who cares what text looks like . . .
I think many people do care about the text they read or write on the web. I know I went through a period where I experimented with all sorts of fonts and incorrectly used the display sort in inappropriate, lengthy pieces. But the electronic spaces I became familiar with led to my appreciation of what I read/wrote looked like. I can't stand to read more than a sentence or two of the cursive fonts in the same way that I feel using ALL CAPS or an excessive use of bold is borderline rude. I think I've become more aware of the presentation of text thanks to the web, not less so.
Perhaps I've missed Bolter's point. I realize that he was writing in '91, when our displays weren't so crisp and capable of elegant, non-pixellated fonts. Maybe I'm just part of a marginal group who cares what text looks like . . .
Media Technologies
I enjoyed our history of digital media technologies. It was very interesting to me to see how the timeline played out. The two earlier pieces seemed to almost be selling their ideas and trying to convince the audiences of the worth and practicality of pushing forward with this technology, the third recorded a story of someone trying to document how people’s minds would interact with the technology, and the fourth—well, the fourth was interesting all on its own. Bolter’s quick run through media and visual communication technology served to show us how we are presently using the new technology in old ways. We are still working at finding new ways to make the most of technology today. That is what W3C (the World Wide Web Consortium) and web 2.0 are all about: finding better ways to really integrate the text, graphics, and interactive components of digital communications in order to revolutionize the way we will use—and interact with— information. What’s remarkable about Bolter’s assertions is that he wrote them in 1991, while web 2.0 began around 2005.
Speaking of Mr. O’Reilly, check out this entry in his blog to see one of the craziest… I can’t even name it. There is apparently an organization that is searching blogs for the phrase “I feel” or “I’m feeling” and using it to compile data statistics on how people are feeling, sorting the data by various methods (demographics, etc.). It’s actually quite fascinating and possibly very pertinent to our examination of blogs (and privacy!).
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Classroom Blogging and Bush (V, not GW)
Patience comments in his or her blog entry that we have not formally addressed the use of blogs to extend classroom discussion and remarks on the potential that blogging offers for extending academic interchange beyond walls and desks. As we are already seeing, the potential blogging offers is, indeed, highly useful. V. Bush, Zappen, and Gurak have remarked on the potential, and we are seeing it on our own blog.
Technology has revolutionized education, and we all experience the benefits of the revolution. From a student's standpoint, we've all experienced the huge amount of help technology has offered us in research. Long days in the library are virtually a thing of the past, even for graduate students. Many of the articles we want are available online. Those that aren't can be ordered through interlibrary loan at home, and are sent to us digitally. Instead of having to save thousands of pieces of paper that might or might not come in handy for future research (I'm still lugging from apartment to apartment boxes of articles from my MA study of 10 years ago), we can load the articles onto the computer and save them forever. With the addition of jump drives into the scenario, we can move these huge texts onto external storage at the end of the semester and free up space for new work without losing the availability to access the old. Amazing! (Someone needs to come up with a way of labeling and storing jump drives, though. I can envision a time when I have a shelf full of jump drives the way I once had stacks and stacks of Zip disks and before that, floppy disks.)
Even locating and obtaining books in the library requires less time outside the home. We can access not only the NIU card catalog, but the card catalogues of other libraries. We can compile lists of books we need and know they are available and just pop into the library to pick them up. Of course, as grad students, once we get to sections of books concerning our topic, we expand our exploration in the old-fashioned way. But because we don't have to spend umpteen hours sifting through journal articles to find what we want before we pay both time and money to copy them, we can spend more time browsing the shelves once we do get to the library. We can gather more information in less time at lower cost.
Technology has also revolutionized education from an instructor's viewpoints. Through email, my students have limitless, constant access to me, and my "office hours" have gone from 2 a week to 12 a day. I can post course materials, assignment updates, revised calendars and handouts to WebBoard continually, expanding my ability to teach beyond the limited 50 minutes I have in the classroom. My class meets physically three times a week. Virtually, it meets constantly. Since my students are THE top priority in my life (over my own courses, the family and friends I used to have, and my ability to sleep, eat, or even use the restroom), yeh, they are with me always, even unto the ends of the earth.
But ever the one who feels it necessary to explore the negative alongside the obvious positive, I am reminded of what V. Bush says about the inability to keep up with available research even in the 1940s days of print. There has always been more to read than there has been time to read it and always more time to read it than to integrate it, reflect on it, and use it. As Warnick points out, computers have made this difference even greater.
As students, we can and probably do find that exciting. We have chosen to devote our lives full time to learning at this point. But what about beyond school? The possibility of working all the time creates the potential of an expectation to work all the time. The situation is staggering enough in the academic world, but at least we are allowed to pace ourselves to some degree. We can decide how much new information to incorporate into the courses we teach, and we can work on research at a reasonable pace.
I haven't held a corporate managment position in 14 years. When I did, only a few people had cell phones. The Internet didn't really exist beyond academics. The World Wide Web had not been born, although it was being incubated in computer research facilities. We were able to go home, to leave work for the day or the weekend. Even at that, there was something of an attitude that salaried employees were owned by their employers. What must it be like now, when employers can reach employees via email and cell phone 24/7? Are people EVER allowed to "go home?" Is there ever an end to the work day? Is there any respect at all for the rights people have to a personal life?
In addition, there are the dangers of "multitasking." (Isn't it great when terms coined to refer to machines are extended to human beings?) I heard a recent news report that people who multitask are more prone to make errors because of scattered focus and experience higher stress. One morning last week, I had four windows open on my computer. On one, I was watching for an email from my presentation partner for 532. In another, I was uploading information for the 104 class I was teaching. In a third, I was composing an email for my part-time employer. In the fourth, I was conducting a chat with a friend. All before 9 a.m. This occurrence was, of course, neither unique in my life or unique to my life. This is how we live.
Baddlee's (forgive me if that's spelled wrong) concept of the ability to hold 7 +/- 2 concepts in short-term memory is well known. However, people are less familiar with what he actually stated; it's not a matter of holding 7 +/- 2 in short-term memory (ST); it's the ability to hold that information in WORKING memory (WM). It is not a matter of trying to remember a phone number. WM is the cognitive space which must hold any concepts in conscious awareness to be consciously manipulated. Items held in long-term semantic (used differently in cog psych than in linguistics) and episodic memory must be brought into WM to be used on a conscious level. The availability of technology does not expand the capacity of WM, but it does raise the expectation that outside parties can place on WM. There are still only 24 hours in a day, WM is still limited to 7 +/- 2, and there is still only so much we can do at once. But we can be reached by any number of people at a time now, and each of those parties can expect us to do more and more because the technology is available that allows us to do it. I was once chided by an employer for not replacing my dead answering machine quickly enough to allow him to contact me at 7 pm on a Sunday when I was having dinner with my family. Now of course, he would expect me to have my cell phone on so he could call me whenever he wanted.
People bemoan the fact that interpersonal contact has decreased because of technology. Warnick mentions that we don't talk to our neighbors over the back-yard fence anymore. These points are well taken, but how CAN we have any meaningful, direct interpersonal exchanges if we are expected to be available to the whole world at all times? Is there any time or energy left to spend on spouses, children, parents, and friends? Are we allowed to work to support our lives, or are we now expected to live to work?
"Ruth"
Technology has revolutionized education, and we all experience the benefits of the revolution. From a student's standpoint, we've all experienced the huge amount of help technology has offered us in research. Long days in the library are virtually a thing of the past, even for graduate students. Many of the articles we want are available online. Those that aren't can be ordered through interlibrary loan at home, and are sent to us digitally. Instead of having to save thousands of pieces of paper that might or might not come in handy for future research (I'm still lugging from apartment to apartment boxes of articles from my MA study of 10 years ago), we can load the articles onto the computer and save them forever. With the addition of jump drives into the scenario, we can move these huge texts onto external storage at the end of the semester and free up space for new work without losing the availability to access the old. Amazing! (Someone needs to come up with a way of labeling and storing jump drives, though. I can envision a time when I have a shelf full of jump drives the way I once had stacks and stacks of Zip disks and before that, floppy disks.)
Even locating and obtaining books in the library requires less time outside the home. We can access not only the NIU card catalog, but the card catalogues of other libraries. We can compile lists of books we need and know they are available and just pop into the library to pick them up. Of course, as grad students, once we get to sections of books concerning our topic, we expand our exploration in the old-fashioned way. But because we don't have to spend umpteen hours sifting through journal articles to find what we want before we pay both time and money to copy them, we can spend more time browsing the shelves once we do get to the library. We can gather more information in less time at lower cost.
Technology has also revolutionized education from an instructor's viewpoints. Through email, my students have limitless, constant access to me, and my "office hours" have gone from 2 a week to 12 a day. I can post course materials, assignment updates, revised calendars and handouts to WebBoard continually, expanding my ability to teach beyond the limited 50 minutes I have in the classroom. My class meets physically three times a week. Virtually, it meets constantly. Since my students are THE top priority in my life (over my own courses, the family and friends I used to have, and my ability to sleep, eat, or even use the restroom), yeh, they are with me always, even unto the ends of the earth.
But ever the one who feels it necessary to explore the negative alongside the obvious positive, I am reminded of what V. Bush says about the inability to keep up with available research even in the 1940s days of print. There has always been more to read than there has been time to read it and always more time to read it than to integrate it, reflect on it, and use it. As Warnick points out, computers have made this difference even greater.
As students, we can and probably do find that exciting. We have chosen to devote our lives full time to learning at this point. But what about beyond school? The possibility of working all the time creates the potential of an expectation to work all the time. The situation is staggering enough in the academic world, but at least we are allowed to pace ourselves to some degree. We can decide how much new information to incorporate into the courses we teach, and we can work on research at a reasonable pace.
I haven't held a corporate managment position in 14 years. When I did, only a few people had cell phones. The Internet didn't really exist beyond academics. The World Wide Web had not been born, although it was being incubated in computer research facilities. We were able to go home, to leave work for the day or the weekend. Even at that, there was something of an attitude that salaried employees were owned by their employers. What must it be like now, when employers can reach employees via email and cell phone 24/7? Are people EVER allowed to "go home?" Is there ever an end to the work day? Is there any respect at all for the rights people have to a personal life?
In addition, there are the dangers of "multitasking." (Isn't it great when terms coined to refer to machines are extended to human beings?) I heard a recent news report that people who multitask are more prone to make errors because of scattered focus and experience higher stress. One morning last week, I had four windows open on my computer. On one, I was watching for an email from my presentation partner for 532. In another, I was uploading information for the 104 class I was teaching. In a third, I was composing an email for my part-time employer. In the fourth, I was conducting a chat with a friend. All before 9 a.m. This occurrence was, of course, neither unique in my life or unique to my life. This is how we live.
Baddlee's (forgive me if that's spelled wrong) concept of the ability to hold 7 +/- 2 concepts in short-term memory is well known. However, people are less familiar with what he actually stated; it's not a matter of holding 7 +/- 2 in short-term memory (ST); it's the ability to hold that information in WORKING memory (WM). It is not a matter of trying to remember a phone number. WM is the cognitive space which must hold any concepts in conscious awareness to be consciously manipulated. Items held in long-term semantic (used differently in cog psych than in linguistics) and episodic memory must be brought into WM to be used on a conscious level. The availability of technology does not expand the capacity of WM, but it does raise the expectation that outside parties can place on WM. There are still only 24 hours in a day, WM is still limited to 7 +/- 2, and there is still only so much we can do at once. But we can be reached by any number of people at a time now, and each of those parties can expect us to do more and more because the technology is available that allows us to do it. I was once chided by an employer for not replacing my dead answering machine quickly enough to allow him to contact me at 7 pm on a Sunday when I was having dinner with my family. Now of course, he would expect me to have my cell phone on so he could call me whenever he wanted.
People bemoan the fact that interpersonal contact has decreased because of technology. Warnick mentions that we don't talk to our neighbors over the back-yard fence anymore. These points are well taken, but how CAN we have any meaningful, direct interpersonal exchanges if we are expected to be available to the whole world at all times? Is there any time or energy left to spend on spouses, children, parents, and friends? Are we allowed to work to support our lives, or are we now expected to live to work?
"Ruth"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)