Literacy is multimodal. People communicate through symbols other than writing. Students may be more familiar and comfortable with other types of symbol creation. Students understanding of all types of symbol making can be used to enrich their understanding of literacy both traditional and multimodal. Students will be asked to be literate in more than just reading in their future jobs and lives. Language arts in schools should better reflect the use of literacy in the lives of students.
Students will not encounter literacy that is as verbal or text centered as it is in the classroom. We are doing them a disservice by making this so. At risk students may also have more opportunity to be successful if literacy in the classroom is open to a more multimodal approach. Children's first experiences of literacy is connected to images. There is not a good reason to remove images as students get older. Many students that have difficulty reading can not create images in their heads of what they are reading. They can not visualize what they are reading. Bringing images back to text may help these students begin to visualize.
Texts are material and should not be transparent. Changing texts from a material paper to the internet does not lesson their materiality. However, this change in form should not be ignored. The change in technology changes writing and literacy. It changes how literacy is used, how it looks and how it is interpreted.
Connecting pictures to text is not new. There is a long history in the use of pictures with text. New technologies have made images free and easier to obtain. It has "destroyed the authority of art." (Selzer and Crowley, 1999) Advertising uses images and text. They use cultural associations to communicate with the audience through images. Images on the internet can have material consequences.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Monday, April 2, 2007
Networked Media
Log of my Networked Media Usage:
-Visited websites for information
-Visited community websites to communicate with friends
-Visited and posted on forums
-Posted creative and intellectual works on blogs
-Used online simulations with students
-Used United Streaming videos with students
-File sharing within my school and department
-Received and wrote emails for work, social, and organizational reasons
-Entertainment - World of Warcraft, massively multiplayer online role playing game (playing and communicating with friends) ; YouTube ; On-Demand cable
-Ventrillo - communicate with multiple friends around the country at one time through oral communication
-Phone - my telephone is connected through the cable modem
I found the Hypertext Garden's article very disorienting. I was concerned that I would miss something because of all the twists and turns the links provided. I was not comfortable with the non-linear fashion of the text. This does not mean that the non-linear organization is a bad thing. It definitely helped to get the idea of the article across. After I was finished reading the article I felt as though I had accomplished something and I also better understood the author's points. The rigid navigational tools websites have can limit creativity and hide important facets of the website. The website demonstrated how the shortest path may not always be the best. The ideas of this piece are completely opposite from what we teach our students. How do we incorporate this new type of literacy, that students will experience more and more, in the classroom. If we do not conform to rigid structure how do we make sure that readers do not get lost in the creative work. Clear boundaries and sign posts are important but if they are not used well readers may get more than a little disoriented.
Hypertextuality in children's literature is another example of how our students use and come into contact with media that is very different from the type of literacy we teach in the classroom. Teachers often may emphasize form over content. The options students have in which to express their creativity are very limited. Students need to have experience with creating texts in which their creativity is allowed to take them outside of form. They also need to have experience creating texts that are more like the ones they will come into contact with in their lives. This is not to say that students shouldn't learn how to read and write in more traditional literary ways. There is still a place and a need for students to have these skills. However, this should not be the only type of literacy students are asked to engage in at school. Students need to be able to write non-linear, multi-modal, multi-perspective narratives. They should experiment with textual form, imagery and graphics. Limiting expression to fit literary rules and norms may now be an outdated form of literacy.
I am currently reading "Nothing But the Truth" to my students. This book uses hypertextuality. It has multiple perspectives and voices. It also uses visual aspects that I have difficulty reading aloud to the students. My students have never been as engaged or interested in a book I have read aloud before.
The instant messaging study also supports the idea that students need a new type of literacy that incorporates the new technologies that have become a part of life. It also recommends that teachers use the literacy skills students are developing through their use of IM in their classrooms to engage students in more traditional forms of literacy. Students may be more engaged if the literary learning in the classroom has a greater connection to social mediation of identities, is multi-modal, more imaginative, collaborative and innovative. Students, over IM, build their own multi-threaded social narrative. Teachers need to be more flexible in their reading practices.
The complex ways in which students chose to use literacy over IM was encouraging. Some of these literary exercises could be used in a literary classroom. Over IM there was a complex use of language by students which included narrative strategies, metaphors, and nonlinguistic and visual elements. Students were spelling and punctuation conscious. They were also aware of tone and voice in writing. They were conscious of word choice and audience. They designed a hybrid spoken/written literacy. Students also valued context and self-monitored.
I have used PowerPoint in my class before. I never thought about what negative consequences it may have had for my students. It had become a transparent tool to me. I did not use PowerPoint in the ways that the article listed. I have never used the default because I have my own ideas of what I want to present to my students and how. I often include pictures, demonstrations, actual objects, class discussion and narrative along with the slides. I have never used the bullets. I have however said, "That will be addressed later in the presentation." Yikes!
I recently learned about action buttons in PowerPoint slides. These buttons can help relieve the linear nature of PowerPoint slides. They allow the presenter to go to any slide at any time with a click. It makes the PowerPoint presentation more like a website.
I am the most concerned about the idea that PowerPoint presentations leave the students passive. Students should never be passive in their own learning; they need to be actively constructing their own knowledge. They should decide what is important and what is not. We should not over-simplify the content and we need to make sure to still include multiple ways of knowing in our classrooms. Breaking content down into bite sized pieces may not be what is best for our students minds. When will their critical and analytical thinking skills be exercised?
Has PowerPoint changed my view of my content area? I have not used it enough for this to happen. When I do use it I use in in my own creative way. I do need to be aware of the effects the way I use PowerPoint may have on my students. I should also take a look at other technologies I often use in the classroom that may have become transparent to me. What "bad" habits have I fallen into? What invitations have I accepted?
-Visited websites for information
-Visited community websites to communicate with friends
-Visited and posted on forums
-Posted creative and intellectual works on blogs
-Used online simulations with students
-Used United Streaming videos with students
-File sharing within my school and department
-Received and wrote emails for work, social, and organizational reasons
-Entertainment - World of Warcraft, massively multiplayer online role playing game (playing and communicating with friends) ; YouTube ; On-Demand cable
-Ventrillo - communicate with multiple friends around the country at one time through oral communication
-Phone - my telephone is connected through the cable modem
I found the Hypertext Garden's article very disorienting. I was concerned that I would miss something because of all the twists and turns the links provided. I was not comfortable with the non-linear fashion of the text. This does not mean that the non-linear organization is a bad thing. It definitely helped to get the idea of the article across. After I was finished reading the article I felt as though I had accomplished something and I also better understood the author's points. The rigid navigational tools websites have can limit creativity and hide important facets of the website. The website demonstrated how the shortest path may not always be the best. The ideas of this piece are completely opposite from what we teach our students. How do we incorporate this new type of literacy, that students will experience more and more, in the classroom. If we do not conform to rigid structure how do we make sure that readers do not get lost in the creative work. Clear boundaries and sign posts are important but if they are not used well readers may get more than a little disoriented.
Hypertextuality in children's literature is another example of how our students use and come into contact with media that is very different from the type of literacy we teach in the classroom. Teachers often may emphasize form over content. The options students have in which to express their creativity are very limited. Students need to have experience with creating texts in which their creativity is allowed to take them outside of form. They also need to have experience creating texts that are more like the ones they will come into contact with in their lives. This is not to say that students shouldn't learn how to read and write in more traditional literary ways. There is still a place and a need for students to have these skills. However, this should not be the only type of literacy students are asked to engage in at school. Students need to be able to write non-linear, multi-modal, multi-perspective narratives. They should experiment with textual form, imagery and graphics. Limiting expression to fit literary rules and norms may now be an outdated form of literacy.
I am currently reading "Nothing But the Truth" to my students. This book uses hypertextuality. It has multiple perspectives and voices. It also uses visual aspects that I have difficulty reading aloud to the students. My students have never been as engaged or interested in a book I have read aloud before.
The instant messaging study also supports the idea that students need a new type of literacy that incorporates the new technologies that have become a part of life. It also recommends that teachers use the literacy skills students are developing through their use of IM in their classrooms to engage students in more traditional forms of literacy. Students may be more engaged if the literary learning in the classroom has a greater connection to social mediation of identities, is multi-modal, more imaginative, collaborative and innovative. Students, over IM, build their own multi-threaded social narrative. Teachers need to be more flexible in their reading practices.
The complex ways in which students chose to use literacy over IM was encouraging. Some of these literary exercises could be used in a literary classroom. Over IM there was a complex use of language by students which included narrative strategies, metaphors, and nonlinguistic and visual elements. Students were spelling and punctuation conscious. They were also aware of tone and voice in writing. They were conscious of word choice and audience. They designed a hybrid spoken/written literacy. Students also valued context and self-monitored.
I have used PowerPoint in my class before. I never thought about what negative consequences it may have had for my students. It had become a transparent tool to me. I did not use PowerPoint in the ways that the article listed. I have never used the default because I have my own ideas of what I want to present to my students and how. I often include pictures, demonstrations, actual objects, class discussion and narrative along with the slides. I have never used the bullets. I have however said, "That will be addressed later in the presentation." Yikes!
I recently learned about action buttons in PowerPoint slides. These buttons can help relieve the linear nature of PowerPoint slides. They allow the presenter to go to any slide at any time with a click. It makes the PowerPoint presentation more like a website.
I am the most concerned about the idea that PowerPoint presentations leave the students passive. Students should never be passive in their own learning; they need to be actively constructing their own knowledge. They should decide what is important and what is not. We should not over-simplify the content and we need to make sure to still include multiple ways of knowing in our classrooms. Breaking content down into bite sized pieces may not be what is best for our students minds. When will their critical and analytical thinking skills be exercised?
Has PowerPoint changed my view of my content area? I have not used it enough for this to happen. When I do use it I use in in my own creative way. I do need to be aware of the effects the way I use PowerPoint may have on my students. I should also take a look at other technologies I often use in the classroom that may have become transparent to me. What "bad" habits have I fallen into? What invitations have I accepted?
Monday, March 26, 2007
The Medium of Television
One of the readings gave the definition of media literacy as able to access, analyze, evaluate and produce print and electronic media. Students are not being taught to or asked to practice all of these aspects of media literacy in most classrooms. All teachers would not be described as media literate under this definition as well. But the definition has key aspects that people who live in a democratic and capitalist country need to be able to do well in order to be critical citizens.
Many of the lesson ideas for incorporating media in the classroom were inquiry based and included critical and evaluative thinking. The lessons that included hip hop also emphasized critical thinking as a tool for empowerment. I would love to include hip hop in my lesson plans. Many of my students would be more motivated and interested in the lesson.
I do not spend a lot of time watching TV. However, I know that many Americans, especially my students, do spend a lot of time in front of the TV. I am glad to see that if students are taught to be critical thinkers they may not be turned into mindless enculturated robots by corporate television giants. The producers may get to decide what messages they want to send but they are not in control of who their audience is and how their messages are decoded by that audience. I hope that through education we can get students to use negotiated code at least. I want my students to question what they watch on TV. I want them to think about it and have a knowledge and understanding of the world to decide for themselves.
Oppositional code is not always wrong it may even be correct the majority of the time. If the message that the media is trying to get across is wrong then my students need to be able to operate out of an oppositional code. The reading states that decoding is not just social class but ones discourse position. This means that if someone does not have the language and understanding to negotiate or be oppositional they will not, even if the message is against their interests. Teachers need to give students the language and knowledge so that they can think for themselves and use negotiable and oppositional code when it is called for.
Last week we read about how big corporations are going to control the "development" of culture in the US if current trends continue. These corporations operate within the financial economy. This week we are given hope through the idea of the cultural economy. The cultural economy is concerned with meanings, pleasure and social identities. This is where the power of the audience can help to control the development of culture. The audience can take the control out of corporate hands. If they do not watch a new TV show it will not be successful, it will not sell commercials, and the corporation will need to find a different show. The audience can affect the financial economy the corporations care so much about.
TV is not making us more stupid. TV is getting smarter. It is exercising thinking skills more today than it ever has in the past. Audiences want more cognitively demanding shows. TV shows today require the audience to make inferences, follow multiple interweaving story threads at one time, fill in or question present information gaps, evaluate difficult social issues, and understand and predict complex social networks. While reading this article I thought of an example of a show that leaves information out that its audience may or may not know. The show "Gilmore Girls" includes a complex narrative structure as well as complex social issues. It has a very quick dialogue that includes frequent quotes and phrases that many people in the audience may not get. The dialogue references current events, pop culture, classical literature, etc. These references occur so often that the DVDs of the show actually come with a study guide in which people can look up references they do not understand.
I read the script of a movie and then watched the movie. It was difficult to find a script of a movie I owned but I finally got lucky with the movie "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" by Joss Whedon. I was very surprised at how different the script and the movie were. The entire original opening scene was cut from the movie. Much of the dialogue was changed as well. For instance, the script in one place has the line, "It's so '91," instead the actress said "It's so 5 minutes ago." Additional dialogue was also included. Once the literature is turned into dialogue changes must be made in order to maintain a sense of realism. The interpretation of the writing by the actors was also visible. There are a lot of people involved in the making of a movie. All of these people interpret the script (a piece of writing) differently.
An interesting note is the after this movie was produced the writer of the script went on to produce and direct his own show with the same main character and a different set of actors. The Buffy in the TV series more closely resembles to Buffy written into the script of the movie. Many of the snappy smart lines in the script were missing from the movie. These type of lines were included in the TV show.
There is a lot of information missing about the emotions and blocking of the actors during each scene in the script. This information must be interpreted into the performance by the actors and the director. There is a lot going on in a scene that can't be described by a script. Each person must decide how they are going to stand, how they are going to speak the line, and what facial expressions they will have throughout the scene. Much of communication is nonverbal and this is left out of most of the script. The nonverbal communication by the actors will greatly affect how the audience decodes the message. Humans tend to pay attention to body language more than verbal language. If the two are in opposition to each other the message the body language is communicating is the one most likely to be decoded.
Many of the lesson ideas for incorporating media in the classroom were inquiry based and included critical and evaluative thinking. The lessons that included hip hop also emphasized critical thinking as a tool for empowerment. I would love to include hip hop in my lesson plans. Many of my students would be more motivated and interested in the lesson.
I do not spend a lot of time watching TV. However, I know that many Americans, especially my students, do spend a lot of time in front of the TV. I am glad to see that if students are taught to be critical thinkers they may not be turned into mindless enculturated robots by corporate television giants. The producers may get to decide what messages they want to send but they are not in control of who their audience is and how their messages are decoded by that audience. I hope that through education we can get students to use negotiated code at least. I want my students to question what they watch on TV. I want them to think about it and have a knowledge and understanding of the world to decide for themselves.
Oppositional code is not always wrong it may even be correct the majority of the time. If the message that the media is trying to get across is wrong then my students need to be able to operate out of an oppositional code. The reading states that decoding is not just social class but ones discourse position. This means that if someone does not have the language and understanding to negotiate or be oppositional they will not, even if the message is against their interests. Teachers need to give students the language and knowledge so that they can think for themselves and use negotiable and oppositional code when it is called for.
Last week we read about how big corporations are going to control the "development" of culture in the US if current trends continue. These corporations operate within the financial economy. This week we are given hope through the idea of the cultural economy. The cultural economy is concerned with meanings, pleasure and social identities. This is where the power of the audience can help to control the development of culture. The audience can take the control out of corporate hands. If they do not watch a new TV show it will not be successful, it will not sell commercials, and the corporation will need to find a different show. The audience can affect the financial economy the corporations care so much about.
TV is not making us more stupid. TV is getting smarter. It is exercising thinking skills more today than it ever has in the past. Audiences want more cognitively demanding shows. TV shows today require the audience to make inferences, follow multiple interweaving story threads at one time, fill in or question present information gaps, evaluate difficult social issues, and understand and predict complex social networks. While reading this article I thought of an example of a show that leaves information out that its audience may or may not know. The show "Gilmore Girls" includes a complex narrative structure as well as complex social issues. It has a very quick dialogue that includes frequent quotes and phrases that many people in the audience may not get. The dialogue references current events, pop culture, classical literature, etc. These references occur so often that the DVDs of the show actually come with a study guide in which people can look up references they do not understand.
I read the script of a movie and then watched the movie. It was difficult to find a script of a movie I owned but I finally got lucky with the movie "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" by Joss Whedon. I was very surprised at how different the script and the movie were. The entire original opening scene was cut from the movie. Much of the dialogue was changed as well. For instance, the script in one place has the line, "It's so '91," instead the actress said "It's so 5 minutes ago." Additional dialogue was also included. Once the literature is turned into dialogue changes must be made in order to maintain a sense of realism. The interpretation of the writing by the actors was also visible. There are a lot of people involved in the making of a movie. All of these people interpret the script (a piece of writing) differently.
An interesting note is the after this movie was produced the writer of the script went on to produce and direct his own show with the same main character and a different set of actors. The Buffy in the TV series more closely resembles to Buffy written into the script of the movie. Many of the snappy smart lines in the script were missing from the movie. These type of lines were included in the TV show.
There is a lot of information missing about the emotions and blocking of the actors during each scene in the script. This information must be interpreted into the performance by the actors and the director. There is a lot going on in a scene that can't be described by a script. Each person must decide how they are going to stand, how they are going to speak the line, and what facial expressions they will have throughout the scene. Much of communication is nonverbal and this is left out of most of the script. The nonverbal communication by the actors will greatly affect how the audience decodes the message. Humans tend to pay attention to body language more than verbal language. If the two are in opposition to each other the message the body language is communicating is the one most likely to be decoded.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Wow
Today I heard my husband reply to someone..."Well, the guy who owns the rights to Shakespeare would sue." This made me see how ingrained the idea of ownership of creative works is. We believe that all works are owned and we do not have the right to creatively derive anything legally. I wonder how far this belief, and in some cases misunderstanding of the law, has gone to stifle creativity. Do we even believe in the public domain any more? Corporations have done a good job enculturating us to believe that every creative idea is owned by someone. The fact that they are also getting the law to back them up makes me even more fearful for the future of free speech and creativity.
Corporate Control of Creativity
The readings discussed the sense of ownership people have for their creative works. The readings discussed the history of this very American idea and belief as well as whether ownership of creative works is good. What effect does ownership versus a socially or community created view point have on the future of our culture and new creative ideas and works?
Ownership should be protected and people should have the right to earn a living from their creative works. Society needs to be careful that our regulations do not stifle creativity and free speech. If only a few people have control over the messages that can become public than our culture will become stagnant and our free speech right has been taken from us. Our culture should be able to develop freely. A few companies should not control the development of our societies culture. Homogeneity is not good. Americans have always taken pride in our perceived individuality. This is being threatened by the changes in technology, regulation and the market. We need to make sure that "fair use" is protected.
This has implications for my students. If this does not change and continues along the same trends they will enter a culture that is not interested in their new ideas and creative works. They may not even be able to find a venue in which to share their work if it does not fit into the controlling companies idea of what should be media. The fact that these companies will not allow controversial adds is concerning to me. Controversial issues has been the life blood of this country. This trend will lead to a less and less democratic nation. Democracy can not flourish in a culture that is controlled in this way.
There should definitely be restrictions on copying of creative works. But not to the extent at which it stifles creativity and puts the control of the "development" of culture in the hands of the few.
The statement by Diane Ravitch that "teachers don't need creativity. Teachers need to use methods that have proved successful." is ludicrous. Methods that have been "proved" successful are often not successful for all groups. The success of the methods are dependent on the teacher and the students they were used with. It is difficult and often impossible to generalize research in education on teaching methods. When you remove the teachers input and creativity you remove and important aspect of the classroom. You may hinder the connection between the teacher and the students. The teacher can not meet individual student needs and learning styles that will help them to be more successful. The model of using basal readers and scripts for teachers goes against the beliefs of most good teachers that know that students will not learn best in this way. If you remove the creativity from the teacher you may also remove the creative opportunities for the students. Social efficiency is not the greatest good. When schooling is view in an economic way you ignore many important facets, purposes and potential valuable uses of schooling.
Should impersonal capitalist corporations have control of our education system? An education system that also imparts social norms and culture to its students?
The idea of praxis is also important. It is one thing to have ideas, to see the problems in society. But it does not good to understand without acting. Praxis is the important joining of understanding or ideas and action. All critical theory should include praxis. Unfortunately, I have seen little praxis in much of the theory I have read.
I have students work in cooperative groups quite a bit. I never thought about the issues they might have based on their sense of ownership of their work. The idea / expression dichotomy is an interesting concept. I have had students make a point of telling me what was their idea in the project. This may come from a sense that their ideas are not as protected or owned as their words (expression) are. They are uncomfortable with the publicness of their ideas and are afraid they will be "stolen." It would be beneficial for my students to think about these issues critically. They should examine their beliefs about ownership of expression and ideas.
I remember struggling with this concept myself as a student when my mother would edit my papers and I would feel as though they were no longer "my words." I would loose my sense of ownership. I could not feel comfortable with a more communal sense of creative production. I am sure my students struggle with this issue as well.
Ownership should be protected and people should have the right to earn a living from their creative works. Society needs to be careful that our regulations do not stifle creativity and free speech. If only a few people have control over the messages that can become public than our culture will become stagnant and our free speech right has been taken from us. Our culture should be able to develop freely. A few companies should not control the development of our societies culture. Homogeneity is not good. Americans have always taken pride in our perceived individuality. This is being threatened by the changes in technology, regulation and the market. We need to make sure that "fair use" is protected.
This has implications for my students. If this does not change and continues along the same trends they will enter a culture that is not interested in their new ideas and creative works. They may not even be able to find a venue in which to share their work if it does not fit into the controlling companies idea of what should be media. The fact that these companies will not allow controversial adds is concerning to me. Controversial issues has been the life blood of this country. This trend will lead to a less and less democratic nation. Democracy can not flourish in a culture that is controlled in this way.
There should definitely be restrictions on copying of creative works. But not to the extent at which it stifles creativity and puts the control of the "development" of culture in the hands of the few.
The statement by Diane Ravitch that "teachers don't need creativity. Teachers need to use methods that have proved successful." is ludicrous. Methods that have been "proved" successful are often not successful for all groups. The success of the methods are dependent on the teacher and the students they were used with. It is difficult and often impossible to generalize research in education on teaching methods. When you remove the teachers input and creativity you remove and important aspect of the classroom. You may hinder the connection between the teacher and the students. The teacher can not meet individual student needs and learning styles that will help them to be more successful. The model of using basal readers and scripts for teachers goes against the beliefs of most good teachers that know that students will not learn best in this way. If you remove the creativity from the teacher you may also remove the creative opportunities for the students. Social efficiency is not the greatest good. When schooling is view in an economic way you ignore many important facets, purposes and potential valuable uses of schooling.
Should impersonal capitalist corporations have control of our education system? An education system that also imparts social norms and culture to its students?
The idea of praxis is also important. It is one thing to have ideas, to see the problems in society. But it does not good to understand without acting. Praxis is the important joining of understanding or ideas and action. All critical theory should include praxis. Unfortunately, I have seen little praxis in much of the theory I have read.
I have students work in cooperative groups quite a bit. I never thought about the issues they might have based on their sense of ownership of their work. The idea / expression dichotomy is an interesting concept. I have had students make a point of telling me what was their idea in the project. This may come from a sense that their ideas are not as protected or owned as their words (expression) are. They are uncomfortable with the publicness of their ideas and are afraid they will be "stolen." It would be beneficial for my students to think about these issues critically. They should examine their beliefs about ownership of expression and ideas.
I remember struggling with this concept myself as a student when my mother would edit my papers and I would feel as though they were no longer "my words." I would loose my sense of ownership. I could not feel comfortable with a more communal sense of creative production. I am sure my students struggle with this issue as well.
Monday, February 26, 2007
The Technology Question and Tools
An interesting question in The Technology Question was whether technology, writing or computers, is humanizing or dehumanizing, democratizing or totalizing. Technology in my view contributes to both ends of both of these continuums. Writing and computers are humanizing because they increase the connections between people. They spread messages and ideas farther. This means that people are more likely to find ideas that they can connect to, and feel a connection to people. They also allow groups of people to come together more easily for a common idea and cause. This in turn can increase democracy because more people have access to information and means of communicating ideas to the populace. Both technologies increase the voice of a person. These technologies are dehumanizing because they remove the person from the text or the message. The reader must provide a context and often provide much of the meaning to the text. It separates people from their communication. The technologies are totalitarian in that not everyone has access to these technologies or the knowledge of how to use them. This can emphasize the have and have nots creating a sub class in society that lose their voice and means of communicating their ideas and needs. The text also posits that through writing alienating us from the natural world it heightens our humanity. This is an interesting idea that writing makes us even more different and separate from nature and so we are more human because we are less like the rest of nature and farther from it. We become more unique and separate from the natural world.
The Technology Question also puts forth the assertion that writing makes possible literature, history, law, government, philosophy and bureaucracy. I do not agree with all of these assertions. Writing may change how we think about and go about practicing these things but it does not make them possible. Many of these things are viable and present without writing in a culture. I agree that writing can foster forgetfulness. It makes memory less important and one does not feel the need to find means to remember large amounts of information. Writing does foster contemplation, analysis and critique. It makes it possible to study an idea more in depth, to reread the idea and formulate a response. It also spreads the idea to a large audience that may respond to it. This holds writers to a higher accountability in what they write.
Another important ides is that culture and cognition, or culture and technology mutually create each other. They both influence the evolution of the other. How technology advances or changes depends on the needs and goals of the culture it is part of. The use of the technology will also depend on the culture it is being used in. Culture is also influenced by changes in technologies. It changes how people live and think about their daily lives. It changes how people think about and share ideas. It can affect the social structure of the culture because of who has access and knowledge of the new technologies. Technologies also influence the individual cognitively. Writing has a value system that comes with it but it is also a product of human motive and serves human purposes.
People prefer their technologies transparent. However, especially with new technologies this is not possible. When I ask my students to use the computer in different ways I wish that the technology was transparent but I am often confronted with how it is not. Students have problems using a sometimes unfamiliar technology. I get products I am not expecting because the student is influenced by the technology and it changes how they write and their writing style. Students’ feelings about computers and how comfortable they are with them effect how they use them. It also affects the choices they make when using the technology. All of this is evident in the webpage examples I linked last week. One student used the technology to link to other students pages. I did not ask her to do this but how she thought and interacted with the technology made her think that she should do this. I also need to think more about how asking my students to use the curriculum can also be affecting their thinking and how they think about the content they are working with.
The Bomer article made me think about what value system I bring to my classroom in connection to the tools I have my students use in my classroom. The biggest tool I have taught my students to use this year was the foldable. This is a three dimensional graphic organizer that incorporate both writing and illustration. An alternative affordance that I did not think of when communicating the use of this tool at first was as a study tool for a test. I learned of this when my students asked if they could have the ones I was assessing back before their test. I am curious what alternative meanings my students may have assigned to the tool of a foldable.
Students and I disagree most on the use of the tool of paper. I hold the value of use of paper for taking notes, interacting with content and communicating knowledge of content. My students hold the value of paper as a means of communicating silently with their peers. They also use it for artistic expression and means of play. My students interpret the tools and use them for according to their own motives and needs. They bring their own applications from their culture and contexts outside of the classroom. The use of the tool and the meaning of the tool is constructed in the classroom not just by me beliefs and understanding of how the tool should be used by but my classroom community as a whole. The meaning of the tool is social constructed by my classroom, our goals, needs and uses of it.
The Technology Question also puts forth the assertion that writing makes possible literature, history, law, government, philosophy and bureaucracy. I do not agree with all of these assertions. Writing may change how we think about and go about practicing these things but it does not make them possible. Many of these things are viable and present without writing in a culture. I agree that writing can foster forgetfulness. It makes memory less important and one does not feel the need to find means to remember large amounts of information. Writing does foster contemplation, analysis and critique. It makes it possible to study an idea more in depth, to reread the idea and formulate a response. It also spreads the idea to a large audience that may respond to it. This holds writers to a higher accountability in what they write.
Another important ides is that culture and cognition, or culture and technology mutually create each other. They both influence the evolution of the other. How technology advances or changes depends on the needs and goals of the culture it is part of. The use of the technology will also depend on the culture it is being used in. Culture is also influenced by changes in technologies. It changes how people live and think about their daily lives. It changes how people think about and share ideas. It can affect the social structure of the culture because of who has access and knowledge of the new technologies. Technologies also influence the individual cognitively. Writing has a value system that comes with it but it is also a product of human motive and serves human purposes.
People prefer their technologies transparent. However, especially with new technologies this is not possible. When I ask my students to use the computer in different ways I wish that the technology was transparent but I am often confronted with how it is not. Students have problems using a sometimes unfamiliar technology. I get products I am not expecting because the student is influenced by the technology and it changes how they write and their writing style. Students’ feelings about computers and how comfortable they are with them effect how they use them. It also affects the choices they make when using the technology. All of this is evident in the webpage examples I linked last week. One student used the technology to link to other students pages. I did not ask her to do this but how she thought and interacted with the technology made her think that she should do this. I also need to think more about how asking my students to use the curriculum can also be affecting their thinking and how they think about the content they are working with.
The Bomer article made me think about what value system I bring to my classroom in connection to the tools I have my students use in my classroom. The biggest tool I have taught my students to use this year was the foldable. This is a three dimensional graphic organizer that incorporate both writing and illustration. An alternative affordance that I did not think of when communicating the use of this tool at first was as a study tool for a test. I learned of this when my students asked if they could have the ones I was assessing back before their test. I am curious what alternative meanings my students may have assigned to the tool of a foldable.
Students and I disagree most on the use of the tool of paper. I hold the value of use of paper for taking notes, interacting with content and communicating knowledge of content. My students hold the value of paper as a means of communicating silently with their peers. They also use it for artistic expression and means of play. My students interpret the tools and use them for according to their own motives and needs. They bring their own applications from their culture and contexts outside of the classroom. The use of the tool and the meaning of the tool is constructed in the classroom not just by me beliefs and understanding of how the tool should be used by but my classroom community as a whole. The meaning of the tool is social constructed by my classroom, our goals, needs and uses of it.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Student made websites
These are some websites my students have made on threatened and endangered animals. My students are 7th graders and many of them had no experience with making a website before this project. They range in quality.
http://www.freewebs.com/savethestellers/
http://www.freewebs.com/blackfootedferrets/
http://www.freewebs.com/rachelj11
http://www.freewebs.com/bighornsheeps/
http://blackrhinoceros.wetpaint.com/
http://mountaingazelles.piczo.com/?cr=5&rfm=y
http://giantpandasaredabomb.piczo.com/?cr=6&rfm=y
http://www.freewebs.com/agar11/
http://grayreefsharks.wetpaint.com/
http://graywolf.wetpaint.com/
http://www.freewebs.com/bbstar24/
http://pic7.piczo.com/go/albumeditor
http://www.freewebs.com/savethestellers/
http://www.freewebs.com/blackfootedferrets/
http://www.freewebs.com/rachelj11
http://www.freewebs.com/bighornsheeps/
http://blackrhinoceros.wetpaint.com/
http://mountaingazelles.piczo.com/?cr=5&rfm=y
http://giantpandasaredabomb.piczo.com/?cr=6&rfm=y
http://www.freewebs.com/agar11/
http://grayreefsharks.wetpaint.com/
http://graywolf.wetpaint.com/
http://www.freewebs.com/bbstar24/
http://pic7.piczo.com/go/albumeditor
Monday, February 12, 2007
Literacy Elitism
Last class we heard about the ImpaCT 2 findings in England that linked the amount of time students spend using network technologies with their attainment in different content areas. I couldn’t help but wonder if some of their findings were a correlation rather than a causal relationship. I do believe that networked technologies can affect students attainment but only if they are used in the correct way. I think this is why he found that in some schools and some subject areas technology did not have an affect on attainment. I see teachers using technology just to use it or to say that they use it. They do not use it effectively and it has no effect on the students learning. Sometimes it even encumbers learning. Technology should be used in the classroom only when it helps to meet learning goals.
He also brought up an important point that parents need to be more aware of what their children are doing on the internet. They need to know what they are learning and exactly how they are spending their leisure time. What are their children being exposed to? Who are they interacting with? Something as harmless looking as an online video game with cartoon looking characters can expose children to adults that are unconcerned about the content of their discussions and who is a part of them. The conversation posted in the blog below is tame compared to some of the conversations I have heard my guild members have in vent. This would be fine if we were all adults but we do have a couple of miners who talk on vent. The youngest of which is 15. Their parents should be aware of this. If they were aware of it I believe they would not approve.
Our class discussion also centered on textualization. I had never thought about how telling a story was so different from conversation and more like text. When I told my husband about the books he should read we had to entextualize the story. First I had to set up a space for myself to talk by asking him to let me tell him about the books I had read. He had to agree to let me talk and tell my story. I then told him a story that was told so that it could have been lifted out of the context and retold. Though there were still contextual clues in the story and it was dependent on the context it was told in.
If my husband decided to he wanted to tell someone else about the books I had read. He would also first need to make a space of time for him to speak. He would then decontextualize my story or take it out of the context it was told in. In his mind he may revise some of what I said in order to lift it out of the context. He would need to fill in any gaps left because of taking the story out of the context it was told in.
My husband would then need to recontextualize the story to fit it to the context he was telling it in. He might stress different aspects of the story depending on his audience. He might make reference to common experiences with his audience or to the setting of the story telling.
Olsen writes about text and its relationship to humans and society. He throws out a lot of the beliefs and cliques that western culture has created about text. He debunks the mythology of text. He discusses 6 deeply held beliefs society has about text that he says current scholarship has cast doubt on.
These beliefs and doubts are:
1. Writing is the transcription of speech – only certain properties of what is said is captured.
2. The superiority of writing to speech – writing is dependent on and secondary to speech, oral language is the main tool of the mind
3. The superiority of the alphabetic writing system – an aspect of our mythology and is limited in use, especially with homophones, other cultures been just as or more successful with different writing systems
4. Literacy is the organ of social progress – it is a mean of enslavement, domination and social control
5. Literacy is an instrument of cultural and scientific development – many great nations developed though dialectic or oral cultures, Greece was primarily oral not textual
6. Literacy is an instrument of cognitive development – you can’t connect means of communication to the knowledge communicated, reading ability depends on content, functional literacy depends on ones life
Until reading this book I held these same beliefs. This writing made me examine my beliefs about literacy. I never realized that my beliefs about literacy could be part of a western superiority complex and elitism. I realized that I am more ethnocentric than I believed. I question what this means for teaching literacy in schools and the importance society places on literacy as a tool students must learn while in school. What are we losing by emphasizing literacy?
He also brought up an important point that parents need to be more aware of what their children are doing on the internet. They need to know what they are learning and exactly how they are spending their leisure time. What are their children being exposed to? Who are they interacting with? Something as harmless looking as an online video game with cartoon looking characters can expose children to adults that are unconcerned about the content of their discussions and who is a part of them. The conversation posted in the blog below is tame compared to some of the conversations I have heard my guild members have in vent. This would be fine if we were all adults but we do have a couple of miners who talk on vent. The youngest of which is 15. Their parents should be aware of this. If they were aware of it I believe they would not approve.
Our class discussion also centered on textualization. I had never thought about how telling a story was so different from conversation and more like text. When I told my husband about the books he should read we had to entextualize the story. First I had to set up a space for myself to talk by asking him to let me tell him about the books I had read. He had to agree to let me talk and tell my story. I then told him a story that was told so that it could have been lifted out of the context and retold. Though there were still contextual clues in the story and it was dependent on the context it was told in.
If my husband decided to he wanted to tell someone else about the books I had read. He would also first need to make a space of time for him to speak. He would then decontextualize my story or take it out of the context it was told in. In his mind he may revise some of what I said in order to lift it out of the context. He would need to fill in any gaps left because of taking the story out of the context it was told in.
My husband would then need to recontextualize the story to fit it to the context he was telling it in. He might stress different aspects of the story depending on his audience. He might make reference to common experiences with his audience or to the setting of the story telling.
Olsen writes about text and its relationship to humans and society. He throws out a lot of the beliefs and cliques that western culture has created about text. He debunks the mythology of text. He discusses 6 deeply held beliefs society has about text that he says current scholarship has cast doubt on.
These beliefs and doubts are:
1. Writing is the transcription of speech – only certain properties of what is said is captured.
2. The superiority of writing to speech – writing is dependent on and secondary to speech, oral language is the main tool of the mind
3. The superiority of the alphabetic writing system – an aspect of our mythology and is limited in use, especially with homophones, other cultures been just as or more successful with different writing systems
4. Literacy is the organ of social progress – it is a mean of enslavement, domination and social control
5. Literacy is an instrument of cultural and scientific development – many great nations developed though dialectic or oral cultures, Greece was primarily oral not textual
6. Literacy is an instrument of cognitive development – you can’t connect means of communication to the knowledge communicated, reading ability depends on content, functional literacy depends on ones life
Until reading this book I held these same beliefs. This writing made me examine my beliefs about literacy. I never realized that my beliefs about literacy could be part of a western superiority complex and elitism. I realized that I am more ethnocentric than I believed. I question what this means for teaching literacy in schools and the importance society places on literacy as a tool students must learn while in school. What are we losing by emphasizing literacy?
Monday, February 5, 2007
Recorded Performance Reflections
I recorded a story I told my husband. He recently gave me a book to read that he really liked. I did not think it was as good as a series I had read and told him about the books I had read.
The context of the story I told effects how I told the story. I was speaking to my husband at home and not to a colleague or students. In that case my language would have been more formal. I also highlighted different aspects of the story than if I had been talking about it in a different setting. The fact that I was speaking to my husband effected what I said. This is an example of audience participation in the story. For example I downplayed the love story aspect of the book because I knew he would not be interested in it. I spoke at more length about the action and political intrigue in the book because I knew he would be more interested in those aspects. I also referred to other stories and books that I knew he was aware of. If I had a different audience I may not have been able to do that.
Another aspect of context is who I am. The speaker affects how the story is told. My point of view, my beliefs, my past experiences shape how I tell the story and what I think is important about the story to tell. Even my beliefs about my audience shape how I tell the story. My past and personality also shape the words I use to tell the story, my inflection and tone.
My husband also participated in the story by nodding and making facial expressions. I changed the direction I was going in while explaining the story because of a look on his face. I also explained a part more in depth than I would have if he had not looked confused. The head nods encouraged me to continue. I was monitoring my story and the effect it was having on him the entire time. He shared in the creation of my performance and it would have been very different if the context or audience had been different.
I noticed that there was music in the way I told the story. My inflection changed depending on what I was saying and the meaning I wanted to get across to my husband that was not in the content of my performance. I also made gestures with my hands and head. How I did this may be important for my relationship with my husband. “Basso and Seeger argue that musical dimensions of performance can shape linguistic patterning and social relations.”(Bauman and Briggs, 1990)
Telling my story was an action. I was trying to convince my husband to read the book. There was purpose to my speaking and it was the action of persuasion. The illocutionary force of my story was: This is a good story. You should read it. I think the perlocutionary force was: This was a story Amy liked and wants me to share. It did not convince him to read the book.
The language in the story was different than a conversation in many ways. My utterance was much longer and not interrupted by another person. The performance also included stalling words like “um” that were not present in the conversation. My sentences were longer and I took longer pauses while speaking. I had the floor and was not afraid of losing it until I was done. I also spoke slower than I do in a conversation.
My performance was more than just an action of persuasion. It is also an action because it is part of the creation of reality and the structure of my marriage. I was also communicating that I love my husband and want him to share good experiences with me. I was communicating this message as well as trying to convince him to read the book, as well as communicating the content of the performance, the plot of the books. Performance plays a part in the social construction of reality. This is an example of my husband and me constructing our reality. This performance is also tied to past performances. We have shared books in the past and the book I am currently reading is one my husband convinced me to read. We have learned to trust each others opinions through past experiences.
The context of the story I told effects how I told the story. I was speaking to my husband at home and not to a colleague or students. In that case my language would have been more formal. I also highlighted different aspects of the story than if I had been talking about it in a different setting. The fact that I was speaking to my husband effected what I said. This is an example of audience participation in the story. For example I downplayed the love story aspect of the book because I knew he would not be interested in it. I spoke at more length about the action and political intrigue in the book because I knew he would be more interested in those aspects. I also referred to other stories and books that I knew he was aware of. If I had a different audience I may not have been able to do that.
Another aspect of context is who I am. The speaker affects how the story is told. My point of view, my beliefs, my past experiences shape how I tell the story and what I think is important about the story to tell. Even my beliefs about my audience shape how I tell the story. My past and personality also shape the words I use to tell the story, my inflection and tone.
My husband also participated in the story by nodding and making facial expressions. I changed the direction I was going in while explaining the story because of a look on his face. I also explained a part more in depth than I would have if he had not looked confused. The head nods encouraged me to continue. I was monitoring my story and the effect it was having on him the entire time. He shared in the creation of my performance and it would have been very different if the context or audience had been different.
I noticed that there was music in the way I told the story. My inflection changed depending on what I was saying and the meaning I wanted to get across to my husband that was not in the content of my performance. I also made gestures with my hands and head. How I did this may be important for my relationship with my husband. “Basso and Seeger argue that musical dimensions of performance can shape linguistic patterning and social relations.”(Bauman and Briggs, 1990)
Telling my story was an action. I was trying to convince my husband to read the book. There was purpose to my speaking and it was the action of persuasion. The illocutionary force of my story was: This is a good story. You should read it. I think the perlocutionary force was: This was a story Amy liked and wants me to share. It did not convince him to read the book.
The language in the story was different than a conversation in many ways. My utterance was much longer and not interrupted by another person. The performance also included stalling words like “um” that were not present in the conversation. My sentences were longer and I took longer pauses while speaking. I had the floor and was not afraid of losing it until I was done. I also spoke slower than I do in a conversation.
My performance was more than just an action of persuasion. It is also an action because it is part of the creation of reality and the structure of my marriage. I was also communicating that I love my husband and want him to share good experiences with me. I was communicating this message as well as trying to convince him to read the book, as well as communicating the content of the performance, the plot of the books. Performance plays a part in the social construction of reality. This is an example of my husband and me constructing our reality. This performance is also tied to past performances. We have shared books in the past and the book I am currently reading is one my husband convinced me to read. We have learned to trust each others opinions through past experiences.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Reflections on Transcribing
Transcribing the ventrilo conversation was somewhat difficult. Some sounds were difficult to correctly portray as typed words. Words like "oof" and "aw" are not exactly correct for the sounds made. I could not capture the difference in laughs. Not all laughs are the same and the intonation of a laugh can mean different things. At one point I used "giggle" instead of "laugh" because I believed it described the laugh better. The person who made the laugh objected to the description and I have since decided that I should have used the word "snicker" to better describe the type of laugh.
The transcription is missing important intonation of the words. A lot of meaning is lost without this intonation. When Aalliyah says, "You abandoned us." She does it in a teasing manner that implies she is not upset. The transcription also looses many of the accents and dialects of the participants. I used the correct spelling for many words instead of writing them as they were spoken phonetically.
Another problem with the transcription is that people who are unfamiliar with the context are not going to understand the conversation. Some of the words used will be unfamiliar. Words such as "rez," short for resurrect and phrases like "mana up"will not be known by most readers. The places and actions referred to will also be unfamiliar. The phrase, "purge his shield," will not make sense to people who are not familiar with the context. The participants even speak of a word in another "language" they do not know the meaning of and explain the meaning to each other.
There is also some deixis that would prevent people from knowing what the speaker is speaking about. Helix makes a deictic reference when he says, "the battle migrated to the other side." Sokila makes a deictic reference when he says, "I got two out front here." They speak of places only someone present would know.
Sometimes it seemed people were fighting to be heard. Part of the problem is that we can not see one another while speaking over ventrilo and so visual clues for turn taking are not present. There is somewhat of a physicality through the virtual world inside the computer but there are still not any facial expressions or body movements to see. If someone does not speak you can not gauge their reaction and timing.
It was difficult transcribing when people spoke over one another. I tried to capture timing with the time stamps but a reader may still miss the importance of this. At some points two different conversations overlap and adjaceny pairs are split by comments that do not fit in with the rest of the conversation.
The participants of the converstaion have multiple names they know each other by and often refer to. I tried to make this easier for the reader by labeling people with the name they were most often called by in the conversation. However, Aalliyah is called Am in the conversation.
Another aspect someone unfamiliar with the group might miss is the relationships between the people and the power structure. This has a great influence on the conversation.
I noticed some unanswered utterances. Grimmel twice makes a statement that no one replies to and then does not speak for the rest of the 5 minutes. There are also many participants to the conversation that speak very little or not at all. There were 10 people on the vent channel when this conversation took place but only 8 spoke.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
WOW Ventrilo Conversation Transcription
Date: January 26, 2007
Location: Outside of the Alliance town of Honor Hold in the Hellfire Peninsula of Outland, World of Warcraft
Participants: Members of the Horde guild Harvesters of Sorrow
Thufur(0:00): Dude you ain't never smelled feet like this boy we used to know.
Sokila(0:05) : Oh, look at that. Give me.
Donkette(0:05): Who, Jerry?
Thufur(0:07): Yeah.
Donkette(0:08): This guy would come over to my house and my mom would make him go upstairs and wash his feet if he took his shoes off.
Aalliyah(0:15): *laugh* No way.
Donkette(0:17) : I swear to God.
Donkette(0:23): Oh, shit.
Sokila(0:26): I smell bacon.
Grimmel(0:33): They need to make more graveyards in this freakin place, man.
Donkette(0:37): This guy got away from me with 48 health, yo!
Donkette(0:42): Can you believe that shit.
Sokila (0:45): Did he go our way? Yep. Nope.
Thufur(0:46):Oof.
Grimmel(0:49): I died up in that Maghor Post and now I'm all the way back in freakin Falcon Watch.
Donkette(1:06): Where did that dude go?
Aalliyah(1:06): Oh, that was not a good rez. We're surrounded.
Sokila(1:09): Hey Jaima?
Jaima(1:12): What's up.
Helix (1:12): Yeah, damn.
Sokila(1:14): Where you been sucker.
Jaima(1:16):Work.
Sokila(1:17): That late, huh? Overtime?
Jaima(1:19): Yeah.
Aalliyah(1:20): Help!
Sokila(1:22): Where are you?
Aalliyah(1:25): I'm going to die again.
Aalliyah(1:28): From Alliance.
Sokila(1:30): I can't tell where your at.
Helix(1:33): *sigh*
Aalliyah(1:34): and I'm dead.
Donkette(1:35): She's over in the...
War(1:36) Coordinates!
Donkette (1:35) East side, East side Honor Hold.
Aalliyah(1:38): I don't have coordinates.
Donkette(1:41): 61, 60s where everybody's at.
Aalliyah(1:42): They're about to get Helix now.
Helix(1:45): I'm down again. Damn!
Chorty(1:49): We need to regroup.
Donkette(1:49): We're on our way. We got a whole rack of us on our way.
Aalliyah(1:54): Thanks for abandoning us. *laugh*
Sokila(1:57): Nobody abandoned you...
Donkette(1:58): I had to go rez...
Sokila(1:57) :you guys separated from us.
Donkette(1:58) :I had to rez in the middle of town, yo.
Helix(2:01): Naw, we didn't separate from you Sokila...
Aalliyah(2:02) :We were near everyone and then...
Helix(2:03) :we got dropped and then the battle migrated to the other side.
Aalliyah(2:08): Yeah.
Sokila(2:08): All right guys, I got two out front here.
Sokila(2:12): *Giggle*...
Thufur(2:13): On my way.
Sokila(2:12): They were just looking at me. They didn't even see you. Aww, look at them. Aww we're pussies, we're pussies, we're running in.
Donkette(2:25): Get this lock. Get this guy.
Sokila(2:32): I got two on me.
Donkette(2:38): Oh, he's got 330 health. Ha!
Sokila(2:41): Shit, the guards came back. I'm dead.
Sokila(2:45): Let me go.
Sokila(2:46): Doh.
Donkette(2:50): Ha, Chorty, F***ed that guy up. *laugh* Vanish Chorty!
Sokila(2:53): What is bur?
Donkette(2:55): Laugh out loud.
Sokila(2:55): Bur, is lol, is it?
Donkette(2:55): Yeah.
Aalliyah(3:00): Their language makes no sense.
Donkette(3:01): Get him Riz, he didn't even see you dude! He didn't even see you baby! Ha ha ha ha.
Aalliyah(3:13): Can I rez?
Donkette(3:15): Yeah, your way safe.
Aalliyah(3:17): I need to repair.
Thufur(3:21):Yeah, I bet that was a nice surprise for him.
Donkette(3:22): I bet it was too.
Corty(3:25): Whenever Donk came all you saw was they both ran in as the guards came after us.
Thufur(3:26): oh, shit.
Donkette(3:30): *laugh* Dude, that mage came out and was trying to attack him and all of sudden I come running up, purge his shield, Thuf comes chargin in from the side and he's like, he's gotta be like oh, shit.
Donkette(3:43) :Oh, he just took out the Lock. Nice! I just killed him a few minutes ago.
Chorty(3:47): Yeah, he popped and tried to run.
Thufur(3:53): All right, lets go back around the front guys.
Donkette(3:56): Let me mana up. Lets all go together.
Thufur(3:58): All right.
Donkette(3:59): Am, did you pop yet?
Aalliyah(4:03): Yep, Helix and I are eating and drinking.
Helix(4:05): Yeah, we're over here.
Donkette(4:12): Helix.
Thufur(4:13): Helix.
Helix(4:15): One bad ass Mo Fo.
Donkette(4:18): You better recognize.
Thufur(4:18):*laugh*
Sokila(4:18): Doh.
Donkette(4:23): *laugh* I see Umaku he's going to snipe.
Donkette(4:29): Ah, looks like that mage is trying to come out front again. I'm coming back over there Am.
Thufur(4:36): Oh man, we just let a druid get away.
Aalliyah(4:39) I think...
Sokila(4:39):Hey guys, over in the East side...
Aalliyah(4:39): I was there with everyone else pretty much.
Donkette(4:41): Got a couple people.
Sokila(4:39): there are a bunch at the East side.
Aalliyah(4:49): Oh, Chorty.
Chorty(4:53): F***in warlock.
Thufur(4:56): Run Donk.
Chorty(5:00): Don't die. No one else can rez me.
Location: Outside of the Alliance town of Honor Hold in the Hellfire Peninsula of Outland, World of Warcraft
Participants: Members of the Horde guild Harvesters of Sorrow
Thufur(0:00): Dude you ain't never smelled feet like this boy we used to know.
Sokila(0:05) : Oh, look at that. Give me.
Donkette(0:05): Who, Jerry?
Thufur(0:07): Yeah.
Donkette(0:08): This guy would come over to my house and my mom would make him go upstairs and wash his feet if he took his shoes off.
Aalliyah(0:15): *laugh* No way.
Donkette(0:17) : I swear to God.
Donkette(0:23): Oh, shit.
Sokila(0:26): I smell bacon.
Grimmel(0:33): They need to make more graveyards in this freakin place, man.
Donkette(0:37): This guy got away from me with 48 health, yo!
Donkette(0:42): Can you believe that shit.
Sokila (0:45): Did he go our way? Yep. Nope.
Thufur(0:46):Oof.
Grimmel(0:49): I died up in that Maghor Post and now I'm all the way back in freakin Falcon Watch.
Donkette(1:06): Where did that dude go?
Aalliyah(1:06): Oh, that was not a good rez. We're surrounded.
Sokila(1:09): Hey Jaima?
Jaima(1:12): What's up.
Helix (1:12): Yeah, damn.
Sokila(1:14): Where you been sucker.
Jaima(1:16):Work.
Sokila(1:17): That late, huh? Overtime?
Jaima(1:19): Yeah.
Aalliyah(1:20): Help!
Sokila(1:22): Where are you?
Aalliyah(1:25): I'm going to die again.
Aalliyah(1:28): From Alliance.
Sokila(1:30): I can't tell where your at.
Helix(1:33): *sigh*
Aalliyah(1:34): and I'm dead.
Donkette(1:35): She's over in the...
War(1:36) Coordinates!
Donkette (1:35) East side, East side Honor Hold.
Aalliyah(1:38): I don't have coordinates.
Donkette(1:41): 61, 60s where everybody's at.
Aalliyah(1:42): They're about to get Helix now.
Helix(1:45): I'm down again. Damn!
Chorty(1:49): We need to regroup.
Donkette(1:49): We're on our way. We got a whole rack of us on our way.
Aalliyah(1:54): Thanks for abandoning us. *laugh*
Sokila(1:57): Nobody abandoned you...
Donkette(1:58): I had to go rez...
Sokila(1:57) :you guys separated from us.
Donkette(1:58) :I had to rez in the middle of town, yo.
Helix(2:01): Naw, we didn't separate from you Sokila...
Aalliyah(2:02) :We were near everyone and then...
Helix(2:03) :we got dropped and then the battle migrated to the other side.
Aalliyah(2:08): Yeah.
Sokila(2:08): All right guys, I got two out front here.
Sokila(2:12): *Giggle*...
Thufur(2:13): On my way.
Sokila(2:12): They were just looking at me. They didn't even see you. Aww, look at them. Aww we're pussies, we're pussies, we're running in.
Donkette(2:25): Get this lock. Get this guy.
Sokila(2:32): I got two on me.
Donkette(2:38): Oh, he's got 330 health. Ha!
Sokila(2:41): Shit, the guards came back. I'm dead.
Sokila(2:45): Let me go.
Sokila(2:46): Doh.
Donkette(2:50): Ha, Chorty, F***ed that guy up. *laugh* Vanish Chorty!
Sokila(2:53): What is bur?
Donkette(2:55): Laugh out loud.
Sokila(2:55): Bur, is lol, is it?
Donkette(2:55): Yeah.
Aalliyah(3:00): Their language makes no sense.
Donkette(3:01): Get him Riz, he didn't even see you dude! He didn't even see you baby! Ha ha ha ha.
Aalliyah(3:13): Can I rez?
Donkette(3:15): Yeah, your way safe.
Aalliyah(3:17): I need to repair.
Thufur(3:21):Yeah, I bet that was a nice surprise for him.
Donkette(3:22): I bet it was too.
Corty(3:25): Whenever Donk came all you saw was they both ran in as the guards came after us.
Thufur(3:26): oh, shit.
Donkette(3:30): *laugh* Dude, that mage came out and was trying to attack him and all of sudden I come running up, purge his shield, Thuf comes chargin in from the side and he's like, he's gotta be like oh, shit.
Donkette(3:43) :Oh, he just took out the Lock. Nice! I just killed him a few minutes ago.
Chorty(3:47): Yeah, he popped and tried to run.
Thufur(3:53): All right, lets go back around the front guys.
Donkette(3:56): Let me mana up. Lets all go together.
Thufur(3:58): All right.
Donkette(3:59): Am, did you pop yet?
Aalliyah(4:03): Yep, Helix and I are eating and drinking.
Helix(4:05): Yeah, we're over here.
Donkette(4:12): Helix.
Thufur(4:13): Helix.
Helix(4:15): One bad ass Mo Fo.
Donkette(4:18): You better recognize.
Thufur(4:18):*laugh*
Sokila(4:18): Doh.
Donkette(4:23): *laugh* I see Umaku he's going to snipe.
Donkette(4:29): Ah, looks like that mage is trying to come out front again. I'm coming back over there Am.
Thufur(4:36): Oh man, we just let a druid get away.
Aalliyah(4:39) I think...
Sokila(4:39):Hey guys, over in the East side...
Aalliyah(4:39): I was there with everyone else pretty much.
Donkette(4:41): Got a couple people.
Sokila(4:39): there are a bunch at the East side.
Aalliyah(4:49): Oh, Chorty.
Chorty(4:53): F***in warlock.
Thufur(4:56): Run Donk.
Chorty(5:00): Don't die. No one else can rez me.
Friday, January 26, 2007
First Post
This is the first post of my first blog.
The purpose of this blog at the present time is to publish my thoughts, reflections, ideas and assignments for my Orality, Literacy and Technology class.
The first assignment is to record a 3-5 minute conversation, transcribe it and post it on this blog.
I have chosen to record my friends' conversation on Ventrilo while we were playing the MMORPG World of Warcraft.
It will be posted soon along with my reflections on the process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)