Plagiarism, A Love Story

        The main concept presented in Teaching Intellectual Honesty in a Parodied World is that younger generations might have a warped understanding of what signifies plagiarism because of what they are exposed to.  Anderson and Cvetkovic point out that popular culture is constantly being parodied or remade, and cite specific examples of parody ranging from political addresses to Simpsons episodes.  They also point to the rise of technology use in teenagers, and describe the “free” culture that accompanies it.  Downloadable music files and streaming videos have vastly altered those markets.  If children grow up having instant access to free movies and music, it’s possible they might treat research material the same way. One particular passage stuck with me, in which the authors describe the typical method a present-day student would use when constructing an essay:

            “Undergraduate students will usually begin a research project by browsing the Internet for source material on a topic, often searching Google or Wikipedia.  They will next cut and paste the material they need for their paper into the document on which they are working.  It is in the subsequent steps, reworking the material into their own words, using quotations for exact quotes, and citing the material that is not their intellectual property, where students typically run into problems.”

            That Anderson and Cvetkovic are aware of students’ writing strategies only adds credence to their argument.  I personally use that method for all my research papers, and it’s interesting to draw comparisons between how I treat source material and how I treat an mp3 file.  After downloading, I consider it to be in my possession, free to do with as I please.  Free to quote or paraphrase or play on repeat.  But what students need to remember is that academia is a different world with different rules.  The authors are right on with their argument that what qualifies as plagiarism in writing is particularly hazy compared to other media.

            For easy comment prompts, look here:

Do you use the writing technique mentioned above?

Has it led to any confusion or difficult identifying what may or may not be plagiarism?

Do you feel an obvious parody of another work needs a citation?

Expanding the Concept of Literacy

In Elizabeth Daley’s article “Expanding the Concept of Literacy” she suggests four arguments for this expansion. These four arguments have been the base for the study held at the Institute for Multimedia Literacy at The University of Southern California where Daley is the Executive Director of the Annenberg Center for Communication and Dean of the School of Cinema-Television.

The first argument Daley proposes is that the literacy in the multimedia world, “language of the screen” as Daley puts it, has become the current vernacular. The technologies that have come about since the primary modes of print were developed have now become for most citizens the most common way of receiving information and communicating with others.

The second argument supports the idea that the language of the screen is capable of having complex meaning on its own without the help of text. Daley discusses an interesting point that I have never put much thought into but holds true, that at Universities today Schools of Cinema and Television are not considered critical unlike the Departments of Physics and English. Daley’s reasoning behind this is due the belief that print is still primary. Unlike text however, multimedia can provide us with the same information but at the same time engaging our emotional and aesthetic senses.

The third argument is that the multimedia language of the screen enables many different thoughts that are different than those of texts. Daley begins with stating that for the people of today to accept the language of multimedia as coequal with text, this will require a challenging shift of ideas but is long overdue. In her third argument she also touches upon montage. “Montage permits an interaction between the creator and the receiver… It not only allows but encourages the recombination of elements to create new meanings” Daley states. The part that really stuck out to me in her third argument is how she described the process behind multimedia as being “active, interactive, and often social, allowing for many angles of view” which varies from text.  

The fourth and last argument Daley proposes is that to be literate in the 21^st century is to be able to read and write both text and the multimedia language of the screen. The four arguments made in this article were very thought provoking but I also feel as though there may be also be arguments to support the opposite side of this argument - that print will always be the greater vernacular. 

From Pencils to Pixels

In the article “From Pencils to Pixels” Dennis Baron discusses the development of different technologies used for writing over time, how these technologies came to be accepted, and how the computer fits in with other writing technologies. In examining the development of different methods of communication, he disputes the claim that computers are “the gateway to literacy”.

A center-point of Baron's article is the history of the pencil. Although the pencil is now considered a “natural” way to write, it was not always, and two hundred years ago it was very difficult and expensive to find a good pencil. When pencils were more readily available to the public, teachers did not allow students to use erasers, fearing that it would cause them to put less thought into their work. However, eventually the use of erasers became common practice.

The next developments were the telephone and telegraph. When the telegraph was first use to communicate from Maine to Texas, Thoreu questioned what Maine could have to say to Texas. Telephone presented new challenges because people did not know how to speak on it and could not see gestures and body language. Phone conversations were monitored and use was originally restricted to the person who was paying the bill. Although this changed with the invention of the pay phone.

When the computer was first developed, it was not intended to be a word processor, but and programmers actually preferred to write code on paper rather than on the computer because of its clumsiness. But before long, word processing became one of the primary functions of the computer and lower prices meant more people could afford computers. With the spread of word processing technology, teachers insisted that no one use spell check, but later changed their stance and required spell checks.

This article was an interesting read because of the similarities it drew between different forms of communication in their development, and how it showed the affect each of these advances had on the way we actually communicate. Do you think that the computer is the solution to illiteracy and the pinnacle of writing technology? Or do you think that even better developments are just around the corner? How can we overcome the issue of determining what information on the web is reliable and what information is not? How has the computer affected your writing?

Of Ideas and Data

In his article “Of Ideas and Data”, Theodore Roszak suggests that ideas are the foundation of the information. Information comes from ideas and cannot be independent from ideas. In Rosazk’s argument, the new media technology like computers is obviously convenient to our lives in the way it processes the fast sundry information. However, it can blur the distinction between the accuracy of the online information and reliability of our own thoughts. Rosazk claims the importance of the ideas from two main aspects. One is that ideas always come first than information for “ the mind thinks with ideas, not with information.”  (P.283) The other one is that “ideas create information” (P.286) and there will be no information without ideas.

In his first claim, Roszak points out an interesting concept called generalization, which is the relationship of ideas to information. He defines it as “the basic action of intelligence”(P.284), which will appear in two situations. First, when we face to deal with sundry disordered facts, our mind should try to find the link among them and to figure out the relevance. Second, if the proffered facts are infrequent, our mind should enrich them and find the pattern of conclusion.  In a word, generalization is a good practice to help us gather an inadequate idea to a more persuasive one. In addition, generalization can take place “among many densely packed and obvious facts” (P.284) or “on the nature of a guess or hunch” (P.284) Generalization seems limits the abundance of the information and concentrates it. However, ideas can be more unstable and controversial. Roszak uses the example of Gestalt figure to explain the relationship between facts and ideas. According to him, ideas gather the scattered, ambiguous facts to one direction and satisfy the questionable minds. Therefore, so-called information is the actually the creation of the ideas.

In his second claim, Roszak reiterates and emphasizes that ideas create information by using the example of the concept of time. Moreover, he argues the negative effect of confound of ideas and information.  If we set the information instead ideas as the standard, there can appear many mistakes. Since update of ideas can usually overthrow the old information, it is very important to remember that without ideas, there will be no information can be constructed.

This is a pretty interesting, but maybe a little bit abstract article. I personally enjoy reading it. So what do you think about the article? Do you agree with the idea that ideas create information? How do you treat the information you absorb online? Do you completely believe it? Or do you sometimes query it? What’s your opinion for the concept of generalization? Will it help us to learn the information faster or maybe kill your creation?  What’s your personally ideas about ideas and informations?

Perseus Unbound Response

In the article entitled “Perseus Unbound”, is a part of Sven’s Birkerts’ book The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in a Electronic Age.   The book references Johann Gutenberg, the creator of the first practical printing press, to the widespread availably of books.  It then links the discussion of replacing conventional print with unlimited information via the Internet.  The debate between the amounts of usage of computers during the late age of print is still being provoked by Elegies well after its publication. 

Birkert brings up the point that whether us as a society likes it or not, technology with video capability had pushed its way into the previously textbook exclusive methods of education.  He believes the process of increasing the amount of integration of this newer technology into the current system is inevitable.  The flexible nature of computer programs allows many applications in Law school, medical procedures, and Perseus 1.0 for ancient Greek culture.

However, the debates against the use of these new technologies in education lies in the potential danger of losing the valve of the information itself, and create a lack of actual understanding. The huge influx of all the previously unknown information will put a stress on the user that may be too much to handle.  We as a society may also lose a sense of depth of the information we learn.  Rather than spending countless hours analyzing Shakespeare, verse by verse, to understand the original meaning, the process has been reduced to a few simple keystrokes. 

While I understand the notion by the opposition, that we could eventually lose the sense of understanding of the information that we study by using this newer technology, I tend to think that we could adapt the technology in a way the helps the user understand the materials.  As we continue to use the technology, our learning methods will continue to adapt, and evolve the definition of  “wisdom”.  The older methods will never become obsolete, rather become incorporated alongside the technology. 

Is Google Making Us Stupid? Blog Resonse, Matt Greco

Matt Greco

English 2367.01 -- Blog Response

It's a tad long, 577 words.

In Nicholas Carr's article: "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" numerous points dealing with the ever-changing relationship between humans and the Internet are brought up. Not only does he go into detail about the way our brains absorb information, but he also discusses the efficiency of companies, which has evolved into the “Googleplex” that is the heart and soul of Google today. As Carr states: “Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes” thanks to Google, which has revolutionized the way scholars study different texts.

Several anecdotes testify to Carr’s point: The idea that the combination of Google, the world’s most powerful search engine, and the boundless plethora of information on the Internet is changing the way humans analyze written information.  For example, Maryanne Wolf, an author and psychologist mentioned in Carr’s article, worries that the style of reading encouraged by the Web could be linked to our lowered mental capacity for deep reading.

While I agree with Carr and Wolf, that Internet skimming might be associated with the ability to concentrate on a lengthy written article, I tend to stray away from the subject of Google, and more towards the subject of Twitter, Instagram, or Snap Chat. I’m talking about social media. Not only has the way research is conducted changed its course, but the way people interact is slowly converting too, into something purely media-based. Through the social media listed above, and the power of the smart phone, I have observed a radical transformation in the way people interact with each other. Twenty years ago, the most common and accepted way of communicating, other than talking in-person, was done over a telephone. Now, with the combined power of smartphones, the Internet and social media, it is possible to reach someone via call, text, picture, disappearing picture, tweet, hashtag, Facebook message, etc. While I choose not to be a part of the Twitter, Instagram, or Snapchat game, I have noticed to impact it has had on today’s generation. I suppose that the need for face-to-face communication between people is diminishing due to the rise of social media. For example, I went to the Ohio Union one day for lunch in between classes. As I sat down with my food, waiting for my friend, I looked around and noticed that almost everyone around me was looking at his or her phone. Not only were the people who dined alone arching their neck, but groups of people sitting together were looking down too.

Even though that example might be extreme, it is accurate, and seems to be commonplace among this generation; the constant need to look at your phone. I am in the “igeneration,” the group who seems to be mesmerized by technology. But personally, I don’t see the need for it. While the benefits and luxuries of smartphones are abundant, I don’t want to be enslaved by a glowing screen like many of my peers are.

Like Carr states, in reference to the movie 2001, “as we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence” So what do you think? Do you believe that Google is making us less attentive? Do you think that Social Media is making our generation more anti-social? Or do you believe that these aspects of our evolving virtual environment are tools that improve our lives intellectually and socially?

Learning to Read Biology

Christina Haas’ essay describes a study she did with a Biology major, Eliza. This study shows Eliza’s development as a reader through her four years of college. At the beginning of the essay, Haas refers to many other studies about academic reading and writing, particularly in the sciences. Using these studies as evidence, she argues that most students see texts as autonomous (meaning they can stand alone) rather than looking at them in context. Haas and other professors want students to have a rhetorical view of texts, meaning they understand that all texts are written by real people in particular circumstances and are part of larger conversations.

The rest of the essay describes how Eliza thought of her reading and class assignments during her four years of college. In her freshman year, Eliza read texts to find out “what the book says,” which is the autonomous view Haas referred to earlier. But as Eliza continued in her school career, she thought more about authors and context. Her work in a lab made her more aware of how grad students and professors conduct research and write about it. By her senior year, Eliza saw herself as a scientist-in-training and had more of the rhetorical perspective that Haas seems to want all students to have. One of Eliza’s most important developments was when she began to realize that scientists can be wrong or might not know all the answers, just like she doesn’t know all the answers.  

According to Haas and the other sources she cites, science isn’t just about “facts” and whether they’re right or wrong but instead is a conversation among scientists. This is similar to the idea Graff and Birkenstein argue for in They Say, I Say: that all academic writing is part of a conversation and that good ideas don’t exist in isolation but are responding to something. By her senior year, Eliza is able to understand and respond to other scientists, rather than just memorizing facts. Facts are still important, but she realizes that scientists are human beings too and don’t have all the answers. This is something that I hope all students can gain as they develop in their education. In elementary school, the teachers tell you the right answer and you trust them as authorities, but by the time you get to college, I believe that it’s more important to have critical thinking skills and figure things out yourself, rather than just relying on the experts.

Do you agree that a rhetorical understanding is better than an autonomous or authoritative view of texts? How might this be different in different majors or subjects? Has your thinking about texts changed since you started college? Do you relate to any of the stages Eliza went through? How could you develop a better rhetorical understanding of your own major?

Feel free to respond to any of these questions or to the reading in general. Let me know if I left out anything important!