"Negotiating and Creating Truth"

I am entirely intrigued by the idea of wikis. Having used Wikipedia numerous times myself to research online, I am a bit cautious about using it in the classroom. While needing to ensure privacy and other safety precautions is inherent, it also seems that the idea of ownership and validation through publication would be skewed a bit for both parties involved.

As Will says in his book: "Every day, thousands of people who have no connection to one another engage in the purposeful work of negotiating and creating truth" (62).

That is great in theory, but in a classroom where effort and application are measured by who does what work, the community effort challenges the traditional ideas of grades and the whole of the grading process.

How, for example, would using wikis in a literature classroom, where students are reading and writing creatively, give them an advantage over group discussion? I can definitely see the use of blogs, but wikis seem to be less of a tool and more of a reference. Or, would it suffice to say that wikis will eventually replace in-class discussion with the availability of more technology in homes?

It also seems interesting when considering ownership when asking about authorship and plagarism. Just because a student submits ideas and pages of information onto the wiki, that doesn't mean it was his work...I know, the same goes for papers and essays and such, but...it would seem so EASY to forge or borrow ideas from someone else, pass it off as his own, and then receive a grade for participation without repercussions. After all, how can you prove it was his work or someone else's?!

Too many questions.

"Nearly," "Many," and other ideas about technology

In reading Bruce's piece "Diversity and Critical Social Engagement," it was clear that this was written by a Digital Immigrant. While I myself am no Native, I am also not a full-blood Immigrant, and I was curious as to a particular statement buried in Bruce's writing:

"Today nearly every school in the United States has Internet access and many students have access at home, in libraries, or in community centers as well" (ed. Alverman p 4).

Okay, so one of the first things that I learned in English exposition and composition is that words such as "nearly" and "many" lack any conviction toward the argument at hand. Actually, they seem to demean his argument. Whereby, in the earlier portion of the paragraphs Bruce lists concrete numbers and stats, here there are none.

Technology is great, but it is expensive, and unless schools have funding or have great teachers to write for grants to help the schools out, I'm not sure "nearly" every school is there. I know I'm nit-picking, but one thing I've learned is not to trust every source I read. Sure, Bruce is discussing Internet access, but the questions arise exponentially: how many students are able to use the computers available everyday; how accessible are the computers; what is the ratio of computers to students; what about those students with no free time during the day or after school to use them; what type of community do these students live in and what type of funding do they have available at the school; how involved are parents in their educations and are they in support of technology; etc. etc. etc.

I'm sure that Bruce knew what he was talking about, and what he meant by his evasive statement, but this seems to support the "digital divide" we've discussed. If there are not any numbers to back his claim up, then maybe there are no studies that have been done, but I don't think that is it. There is a huge difference, economically, between students who have computers at home or have to go to libraries to use them; perhaps this should have been discussed as well.

If all of these schools, or a lot of them, have access to the Internet why are we not making greater use of them in classrooms? Is is because there are not computers in classrooms, but in labs that have to be signed out ahead of time?

Access does not equal availability, so the question is:
Who is the technology available to and when?

Curious Incident of Advertising

I was driving to work today, and a familiar advertising sign caught my eye. Usually this company puts up amusing, punny jokes that I laugh at, but this time it seemed more like a statement on the world at large. Since the company is in real estate, I hardly ever expected it to say:

Teen Motto:
To each his phone

Alright, I know. The nice little play on words to the adage "to each his own," where in this case the identity, the "owning," is wrapped up neatly in the cell phone. I thought this observation was highly astute, regardless of its one-dimensional humor(which I enjoy).

Teens are with their phones 24/7/365. The phone is their link to their friends, their family, their co-workers, while also being their safety net in emergencies, their address book, their daybook, their photo album, their reminder of birthdays/anniversaries, their mp3 player, their saving grace in boring classes (games, text mess, etc.), etc. etc.

It used to be: You are who you read.

Now, it is: You are what your cell tells the world you are.

Image almost speaks louder than words.

But, the question lingers: who are teens without their cell phones?!?