Today in my Comp and Rhet class, a classmate did a presentation on the Marilyn Monroe quotes that seem to be blowing up on social networking sites. Most of these quotes have a picture of her as the background and the quote normally speaks on the behalf of women. Well, today this student revealed to us that during her research she found that Marilyn Monroe didn't say half of the quotes that some of these internet icons are giving her credit for. None of the above quotes (click on the links) are hers. One of "her" heavily used quotes, " Well behaved women rarely make history", was actually said by a Harvard Professor, someone just decided it would be more influential if Marilyn's name was tacked on to the end.
In class, when we were showed real Marilyn quotes, the class did ask how the presenter knew which were real, and which were fake. She said that the real quote have video or sound documentation of her speaking them, where as most of the others do not, and if they do they can be traced back to other people. Here is a real Marilyn Monroe quote, which i think is pretty ironic.
“Please don’t make me a joke. End the interview with what I believe. I don’t mind making jokes, but I don’t want to look like one… I want to be an artist, an actress with integrity… If fame goes by, so long, I’ve had you, fame. If it goes by, I’ve always known it was fickle. So at least it’s something I experienced, but that’s not where I live.”
Are we making Marilyn look like a joke by tacking her name on to things other people have said? If she was alive, would she agree with them, or are we insulting her point of view?
Friday, September 28, 2012
Thursday, September 27, 2012
"Tall" Question.
The text discussion in Kist's chapter 3 from page 50 leading up to the questions on page 51 are about plagiarism, copy rights, and what "fair use" is. The reason teachers limit new media applications is because of the fear of plagiarism. One of the questions asks if we feel that using texts that others have written on the web belong to everyone and that everyone should be able to use it to create their own hybrid text. The question asked if we agree or disagree. Well I think I both agree and disagree. It depends on what your using this information for, because technically showing a youtube clip is taking someone else's work to give our lessons more context, so that would be one way you are taking something that is on the web, because everyone owns it. So agreeing with the statement that everyone can alter and use the information on the web raises the problem of credibility, simply because everyone can take this information and alter it or change it, so how credible is it? This is usually why teacher limit what their students can use on the internet for their research, but why can't it be good for discussion? If this is how our students communicate and learn outside of the class room, why can't it help them learn inside the classroom?
Now for the disagreeing part. If students are handing in research or something graded, then yes, they should cite or give reference to where their ideas generated from because they didn't create the information. But they did create the thoughts that someone else's work generated, so if they can show where their thinking was when they first read the article or information, and the procession to how they have come to their own conclusion or thoughts, I think that is the learning process. They are learning information, and developing their own ideas so they're also learning about themselves. The point of the web is to share ideas, thoughts and information with one another, and our students are already doing that on their own time. I think if we take these skills they seem to be born with, along with the help of guide lines, and put them into the classroom they will be able to excel and respect the original thoughts and copy rights of other creators.
Now for the disagreeing part. If students are handing in research or something graded, then yes, they should cite or give reference to where their ideas generated from because they didn't create the information. But they did create the thoughts that someone else's work generated, so if they can show where their thinking was when they first read the article or information, and the procession to how they have come to their own conclusion or thoughts, I think that is the learning process. They are learning information, and developing their own ideas so they're also learning about themselves. The point of the web is to share ideas, thoughts and information with one another, and our students are already doing that on their own time. I think if we take these skills they seem to be born with, along with the help of guide lines, and put them into the classroom they will be able to excel and respect the original thoughts and copy rights of other creators.
Friday, September 21, 2012
YOLO vs Carpe Diem
In my Comp and Rhetoric class today, we watched a student put on a presentation about YOLO. The question was raise, "Has YOLO replaced Carpe Diem?" Carpe Diem, which is usually known to mean "cease the day", is usually a positive saying encouraging people to do something meaningful today, because tomorrow is never promised. We discussed that YOLO, meaning "You only live once", could be the carpe diem of our generation. However, actor Jack Black tweeted, "YOLO is the 'Carpe Diem' for stupid people." The more we discussed the more we started to see Jack Black's side. We discussed in class that YOLO is normally a justification for doing something stupid, which is actually the complete opposite meaning of Carpe Diem. I thought that was very interesting, and if your not sure how you feel about YOLO, take a glance at your Facebook newsfeed, or the Twitter hashtag for YOLO and make your own decision. I think I'm with Jack Black on this one.
Extending the Conversation
I found this article really interesting, and enlightening. The article said that it is believed that all of these advances in technology are actually changing the way we think. It obvious that it's changing how we look for or use information, but can it actually alter the way our brains process information? I took a while to think about this, and I think I agree. Like we've discussed in class, when were on the internet whether were looking for information or just browsing, nothing we do is perfectly linear. There are always so many links and options for information literally flashing in front of us. I know that when I'm casually on Facebook and I see something that interests me, I can create a new tab (so I don't loose my spot down my newsfeed, how sad) and then get to that when I'm ready. My thoughts don't have to be linear when I'm on the internet, because I have ways of saving where I am, and then coming back when I'm ready.. so does this mean I think in "tabs"? Are my thoughts as un-linear as my internet searches? We've discussed how the generation after ours is great at multitasking because they can use their phones, computers, Ipods, and watch tv all at the same time, which in order to follow those things all at once your thinking and thought process couldn't be linear. If it was you would have to finish your texting conversations before you went on Facebook, then listen to your Ipod, and then tune into your show. But somehow these kids are able to give each item their undivided attention, at the same time. Maybe students find school boring, simply because their minds are so capable of a lot of information and action all at once. The idea of multimodal literacies would most definitely be a benefit to them!
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Why Tweens Hate School
I loved this article, I thought the statistics it provided were great, and astounding. The diagram 1.1 was really interesting and showed the rapid progression of technology that I experienced over the course of my lifetime. Alvin Toffler's Wave Theory was interesting too, because after seeing how quickly we have progressed in the last 10 years it does seem to only take months at a time for some new fad to take off. However, after finishing it I find myself having mixed feelings about my own opinion on how much technology is too much, and if it all has a purpose in our classrooms.
The pretend lesson the author created with avatar's was incredible. I think students would be really into doing something like that, learning wouldn't even feel like learning, and most students have access to the internet at home so it wouldn't be a problem. I understand that incorporating technology into our classrooms will better hold the attention of our students, and as the article said, they have no problem keeping up or getting distracted because it was almost as if they were born to multitask, but are we encouraging something negative?
One father said that in order to talk to his daughter he had to text her, that he had to go "into her world to get to her". I think that is beyond ridiculous! When she needs to get a job, her employer is not going to go into her world to get her. How is she going to learn to work with other people? Why would we encourage this type of seclusion?! It's frowned upon in jails for prisoners, but we think it's okay for our children because they're sharing pictures of what they're doing every ten minutes with the world? What about the health affects this is going to have on their generation? I know this has nothing to do with learning, but we learn so we can go farther and make the most of life, but what if were not healthy enough to take full advantage of this knowledge? Maybe it's a stretch, but were cutting gym classes, and my senior year of high school I had to write a paper for gym! I feel like through all of this we lose what life is about, getting up and doing something, and instead we get up and post about it.. or take a picture of it. We don't talk to people, we just put words on people's screens. Kind of like right now, I don't know if anyone feels the same, or feels the complete opposite unless they post a comment about it.
I do believe that bringing more technology would be beneficial to students, and it would help them want to learn what ever they are being taught. I think it would be more relatable and they would resist it less. I just don't think we would be teaching anything more then what's in the lesson. No people skills, work skills, or life skills. Just school skills, and for some of us, school is just 18 out of 100 years of living.
The pretend lesson the author created with avatar's was incredible. I think students would be really into doing something like that, learning wouldn't even feel like learning, and most students have access to the internet at home so it wouldn't be a problem. I understand that incorporating technology into our classrooms will better hold the attention of our students, and as the article said, they have no problem keeping up or getting distracted because it was almost as if they were born to multitask, but are we encouraging something negative?
One father said that in order to talk to his daughter he had to text her, that he had to go "into her world to get to her". I think that is beyond ridiculous! When she needs to get a job, her employer is not going to go into her world to get her. How is she going to learn to work with other people? Why would we encourage this type of seclusion?! It's frowned upon in jails for prisoners, but we think it's okay for our children because they're sharing pictures of what they're doing every ten minutes with the world? What about the health affects this is going to have on their generation? I know this has nothing to do with learning, but we learn so we can go farther and make the most of life, but what if were not healthy enough to take full advantage of this knowledge? Maybe it's a stretch, but were cutting gym classes, and my senior year of high school I had to write a paper for gym! I feel like through all of this we lose what life is about, getting up and doing something, and instead we get up and post about it.. or take a picture of it. We don't talk to people, we just put words on people's screens. Kind of like right now, I don't know if anyone feels the same, or feels the complete opposite unless they post a comment about it.
I do believe that bringing more technology would be beneficial to students, and it would help them want to learn what ever they are being taught. I think it would be more relatable and they would resist it less. I just don't think we would be teaching anything more then what's in the lesson. No people skills, work skills, or life skills. Just school skills, and for some of us, school is just 18 out of 100 years of living.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Something Educational?
Being a future educator of English, I have to read a lot of Shakespeare. I just finished the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet for the second time in my life, only to find out it's not even a tragedy. Sure its tragic, that both Romeo and Juliet die, but technically this play is a comedy. Literary dramas have different "modes", which is defined by the characteristics of the characters and the storyline. A tragedy is when a character has some sort of flaw, that ultimately leads to their own demise. They need to start high, and eventually fall (into death). Where as in a comedy, the plot needs to transition from chaos to clarity. (Spoiler alert if you haven't read it) In Romeo and Juliet the opening scene is a fight in the streets because of Romeo and Juliet's families, which is clearly chaotic. The last scene is Romeo and Juliet's funerals, where the families decide to put their differences a side after losing their children, which then restores order. So there ya have it, The Comedy of Romeo and Juliet.
Semali Readings
The Semali reading this week was very insightful, one part in particular that I liked was on page 11. About half way down the page Semali is telling us about the Swiss Linguists, Ferninand de Saussure and the studies he conducted. I am a big believer and supporter of the learning pyramid, so the work he did really hit home with me. He believed that analyzing signs was determined by two things. The first being the actual word or image, and the second being the corresponding thought that the sign/image/word triggers. This directly plays back into the learning pyramid, being that the more stimulus an idea is introduced with, the more likely a person is to remember it. he believed that this Transmediation are "systems of representation of meaning".
This allows us to give meaning to the world by creating a chain of meaningful and equivalent comparisons between people, objects, events, and ideas. He believed that the relationship between things and concepts lie at the heart of production. Generating these ideas in more then one way is easier for students to grasp as their own.
This allows us to give meaning to the world by creating a chain of meaningful and equivalent comparisons between people, objects, events, and ideas. He believed that the relationship between things and concepts lie at the heart of production. Generating these ideas in more then one way is easier for students to grasp as their own.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)