Category — Uncategorized

I’d like to take some time to reflect on our spaces in ETEC 540. During Module 1, we were introduced to our Vista course space (forums, mail, chat…), Flickr and our Community Weblog. During Module 2 we added to our Orality and Literacy wiki pages and we were encouraged to create pages. We also have our Textology Weblog, which I’ve commented on, but haven’t posted to yet. So far so good, but I have to remind myself this is my 9th MET course. I am now fairly literate in reading and writing in these new spaces. This is a long way away from my 2007 self, who was a little lost in ETEC 510.

In ETEC 510 we had to navigate Vista (tricky your first time!) and edit a class wiki (what’s a wiki?) and I was petrified! I spent one hour with our in-school “techie” just learning to post to the wiki and I remember my heart racing as I thought about what I might do “wrong”. Later MET classes introduced me to social bookmarking, creating my own wiki (!), creating my own Moodle (!!) and creating my own blog (!!!). It was a sharp learning curve for someone who read the class outlines concerning MET technology know-how and thought “Yes, I can e-mail with attachments, I’ll be fine!”  🙂

I can’t believe how quickly I have improved my literacy! I can use a WYSIWYG editor in a relaxed manner, a tool which once frightened me with all its buttons and options. I admit, I did have a little palpitation during my ETEC 540 wiki edit, but I knew I could revert to the old page if something went terribly wrong. Another “new spaces” skill!

I know I am at the beginning of understanding this development from an academic point of view. However, I feel that the various readings in 540 relate to my experience. Two years ago I was literate, but not digitally literate. Now I can  draw parallels between  digital literacy and orality, specifically in knowledge community development and creating a sense of  a cohesive “group”. Now I can navigate new spaces of literacy. Now I know these spaces exist and there are other people in them!

I just wanted to share my growth with the class because somebody out there is new to these writing and reading spaces. I want them to know we’ve all been there and by Module 3, navigating these spaces will be old hat.  I’m left wondering, along with you no doubt, what the next big literacy space will be.

I’ll leave you with a great clip “Learning to Change-Changing to Learn” concerning K-12 students and teachers and the shift from traditional reading and writing spaces to the changing spaces we’re being exposed to in ETEC 540 . My favourite quote: “We have a classroom system when we could have a community system”. Enjoy!

 See you in the forums, or the wiki, or the blog, or on delicious or Flickr….Erin

New Aged (transformative) Literacy

Image uploaded from: www.rasmussen.edu/.../ Blog-Code-of-Conduct.aspx

The following commentary will provide a brief synopsis of the foundational arguments of Walter J. Ong in Orality and Literacy. Ong’s viewpoints will then be juxtaposed against ideas brought forth by John Seely Brown in GROWING UP DIGITAL: How the Web Changes Work, Education, and the Ways People Learn.

In Orality and Literacy, Walter J. Ong demonstrates the distinct differences between primary oral cultures and literate cultures. He stipulates that primary oral cultures have “no knowledge whatsoever of writing or even the possibility of writing” (Ong, 2002, p. 31). Without this technology, Ong believes that oral cultures cannot retain and/or reproduce anything outside of themself once the act (i.e., the speaking and doing of things) has been completed.

In turn, oral societies have gone to great lengths to work on mnemonic devices that Ong suggests are “shaped for ready oral recurrence” (Ong, 2002, p. 34). This difference then leads to oral and literate cultures having divergent thought processes. Through repetition and redundancy oral cultures are able to preserve the core of their stories and traditions. Literate cultures not only have the ability to preserve their stories and traditions but also creative flexibility with grammatical nuances.

Once again, Ong suggests that this establishes differing worldviews where in fact “writing separates the knower from the known and thus sets up conditions for ‘objectivity’, in the sense of personal disengagement or distancing” (Ong, 2002, p. 45). As well, objectivity and the ability to think in abstract terms Ong (2002) suggests moves individuals and cultures away from the ‘here and now’ of the human lifeworld. He expands on this point of disengagement when he looks at community.

Ong posits that “writing and print isolate” (Ong, 2002, p. 73). In contrast, oratory or speech-making connects audience members with the speaker and others within a room unlike when a “reader enters into his or her own private reading world, the unity of the audience is shattered” (Ong, 2002, p. 73). In chapter four of Orality and Literacy entitled, Writing Restructures Consciousness, Ong continues to build upon his premise that oral and literate thought is distinctly different and that even the smallest amount of exposure to the literate world affects how one views and interacts within that world. For the purposes of this review, we will now turn our attention to GROWING UP DIGITAL: How the Web Changes Work, Education, and the Ways People Learn by John Seely Brown.

It has been shown that Ong viewed writing as a technology that transformed oral cultures to the point where their actual thought processes were irrevocably altered. Brown begins his article along a similar vein of thought in that “the World Wide Web will be a transformative medium” (Brown, 2002). Brown puts forward that the World Wide Web (i.e., Internet) will impact individuals and society, as did the universal adoption of electricity. “When that infrastructure finally took hold, everything changed-homes, work places, transportation, entertainment, architecture, what we ate, even when we went to bed. Worldwide, electricity became a transformative medium for social practices” (Brown, 2002). Ong portrays the transformation from orality to literacy as one of loss and permanence. In contrast, Brown envisions the Internet as an enabling medium:

The first thing to notice is that the media we’re all familiar with-from books to television-are one-way propositions: they push their content at us. The Web is two-way, push and pull. In finer point, it combines the one-way reach of broadcast with the two-way reciprocity of a mid-cast. Indeed, its user can at once be a receiver and sender of “broadcast”-a confusing property, but mind-stretching! (Brown, 2002)

In supporting this ‘push and pull’ belief, Brown (2002) also suggests that the Internet is the first technology that recognizes and supports multiple intelligences. Practioners of these new literacy skills must be able to process volumes of material in a wide variety of mediums while employing both discerning and proficient navigational skills. Brown envisions these new skill-sets as Bricolage “ a concept studied by Claude Levi-Strauss, “ that “has to do with abilities to find something-an object, tool, document, a piece of code-and to use it to build something you deem important” (Brown, 2002). In connection with the above notion of new literates being bricoleurs is community.

Within any community, from your own family to your school or workplace, individuals are both consumers and producers of information. Brown suggests that “[m]uch of knowing is brought forth in action, through participation-in the world, with other people, around real problems. A lot of our know-how or knowing comes into being through participating in our community(ies) of practice” (Brown, 2002). Brown’s article demonstrates that literacy has evolved or transformed to offer individuals and groups both access to information (e.g., utilizing multiple learning styles) and inclusion in new communities of practice e.g., social networking sites, gaming sites, reading groups, etc. Simultaneously, Internet literates are involved in an exchange of information in a more reciprocal ‘push and pull’ process than has ever been possible with traditional forms of literacy.

It would seem that Ong’s sense of loss and permanence with regard to orality is (in a multi-disciplinary manner) finding its way onto the Internet and therefore into the thought process of individuals and communities. In fact, it is not unreasonable to suggest with the continued proliferation of Web 2.0 technologies that hybridized oral tradition will re-manifest itself on the Internet.

References:

Armstrong, T. (2009) Multiple Intelligence: Retrieved, October 2, 2009 from: http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm

Brown, J. S. (2002) GROWING UP DIGITAL: How the Web Changes Work, Education, and the Ways People Learn. USDLA Journal: ISSN 1537-5080 Vol. 16 : No. 2

Ong, W. J. (2002). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York, New York: Routledge.

 Scintillating. This is the word I kept saying to myself especially when I did a rereading of Phaedrus and read some of the commentaries. I must apologise for being so quiet but this my first time doing an online course and this is one of two. I lecture at a teachers’ college, where most persons seem to  feel that an online course does not require any special time table considerations .  Presently, I teach 24 hours per week. I have a  5months old baby girl and a miracle son, who is the main reason why I am studying online. I am extremely grateful to be studying online because it would not have been possible since my son is still recovering from multiple injuries he sustained in terrible car accident last year. My son was hit by a speeding police car. I just included this personal information at this point because I am not sure where my introduction went. I am a Jamaican. Despite being a developing country which is slow in catching up with many types of technological advancement we speed on narrow winding roads.

Where am I heading with this? Well Jamaican society is heavily dependent on orality. Only this week the government decided to increase taxation of the three major telephone companies. People are very angry about this, even my students. When a third company joined Digicel and Cable and Wireless, I was one of those who thought that the new company, Claro could never survive.  We had good reason to believe this.” A small country with only 2.5 million people, with a high percentage of them living below the poverty line.” That’s what we thought. Today all three companies are doing extremely well. As a result of the demand for cell phones and the trappings associated with them, it is cheaper for many to call their relatives abroad rather than have the relative call them as previously maintained. I am also experiencing this as my husband is in Canada presently. The telephone deals are getting better each month. This country really allows talk to be cheap!

Students at all levels face difficulties with writing because their mother tongue is a Creole which exists only in oral form. Attempts that have been made to standardize this language have failed because to write the Creole is problematic. However as result of it existing in the oral form English and slangs from America are being interspersed.The true nature of the languge can never be contained again so I believe linguists should abandon the idea of standardizing. Too many words have been transferred and the original expressions have died with the elders. This is what is so important about writing. Writing is a means of recording culture. The orality practised  has  caused many cultural ideals to be lost. The Anancy stories which Ong refers to have been dying, as many of them were not written down. According to Socrates writing is important for ” memorials to be  treasured against the forgetfulness of old age.” Some of our ways of cooking different dishes have died because of this heavy reliance on orality.

I believe that if some persons were inclined to  write their feelings rather than speak them then there would be less violence. Speaking involves gestures and body langauge which could be irritating to someone who is already very angry.

I found this article on Edutopia about professional development conducted in a US school district.  I thought it might be of interest to those of you who are teaching and for all of us really as we may be the ones who are called upon to train our colleagues within our schools or school boards.  It’s a challenge I willingly accept.

http://www.edutopia.org/martin-behrman-charter-school-technology

There is a global conflict taking place.  That battle occurs not in cities and towns but in the hearts and minds of members of the global community.  If this sounds alarmist and hyperbolic it is and encapsulates the sentiments of Neil Postman in his introductory chapter titled, “The Judgement of Thamus” (Postman, 1992).   Postman (1992) is of the mind that technology in the form of television and computers are influencing society in general and students specifically in profoundly negative ways.  He cautions us that before a technology is readily accepted into a culture the negative aspects of that technology must be considered.  He present a very narrow definition of technology.  Postman fails to recognize that, “Technologies are not mere exterior aids but also interior transformations of consciousness.”  (Ong, 1982, p.81).  Postman’s technological deterministic stance is moderated by the work of Ong (1982) and Chandler (1994).  To say that consciousness is being fundamentally altered is a stretch but are we being influenced by the shift from a print based culture to a hypertext media?  Most likely.  What these changes to our consciousness are and to what degree will have academics debating for years.

Although Postman (1993) concedes that there are positive and negative aspects of any technology he does not present this balanced view in his Chapter, “The Judgement of Thalamus”.   Postman recounts a story described by Socrates to his friend Phaedrus detailing the invention of writing by Theuth.   A weakened memory, an over reliance on text to remember and an informed citizenry that appears to be wise but in truth lacks the capacity are but some of the criticisms of writing outlined by King Thamus to Theuth (Postman, 1993, p. 4).  How did orally based cultures remember when in the words of Ong (1982) the spoken word was “ephemeral”?   The answer is quite simple, “By thinking memorable thoughts” (Ong 1982, p. 34).   Pre-literate cultures depended upon mnemonic patterns, that were heavily rhythmic with predictable balanced patterns, repetitious with alliterations or assonance and many other mental cues.  Memories were embedded within standard thematic stories and proverbs with serious thought being mixed in with these memory systems.  Despite these mnemonic aids non-literate cultures were prone to sloughing off old information in favour of “lived experience” (Ong, 1982, p.47).  But to see writing for all of it’s negative qualities without acknowledging that it is in fact “essential for the realization of fuller, interior, human potentials” (Ong, 1982, p. 81) is short sighted.  Postman fails to balance his critique of technology, specifically the computer, by not recognizing that by extension this advancement of “human potential” is further achieved by computers which are the next evolutionary stage of the written word.  Postman believes that the conflict between media and the spoken word leaves students “casualties” of a psychic battle.  “They (students) are failures because there is a media war going on, and they are on the wrong side” (Postman, 1993, p.17).  I would beg to differ that our students are failures in fact graduation rates have never been higher despite the doom and gloom proposed by Postman (Ministry, 2009).   Postman cautions that moving towards a more literate based culture, as exemplified by the computer in the classroom, shifts the balance from group learning, cooperation and a sense of openness to one of introspection and isolation (Postman, 1993, p.17)   With the advent of social networking sites and on-line collaboration as demonstrated in the open source movement I think that Postman has missed the mark.  Collaboration and cooperation have never been so easy as well as applicable on a massive scale.  Cyber symphonies are taking place in real time by musicians who otherwise might not have the opportunity to play with each other.  As the shift continues to a knowledge based economy in the West, those students that balance the necessity to gain computer literate skills with lived experience will have the technological and real life skills to be balanced citizens.

There is something that Ong and Postman agree on and that is that, “more than any other single invention, writing has transformed human consciousness (Ong, 1982, p.77).  However Postman does not elaborate on what these differences are stating that, “This is because the changes wrought by technology are subtle if not downright mysterious. (Postman, 1993, p.12)  Fortunately Ong outlines some of these “mysterious” changes.  One of the critiques of writing is that it is autonomous in that it cannot be debated with (Ong, 1982, p.78).  This critique is not new and Plato had the same misgivings over writing despite putting his concerns down on paper.  In fact when writing was supplanted by print these same critiques were present.  Postman argues against readily accepting technologies into a culture.

In any given social theory Chandler (1994) cautions technological determinists, such as Postman, that linking any technology to societal change is overly reductionist and is “widely criticized”.  Reductionism when applied to social theory simplifies things to a point whereby one can examine aspects of society in detail however it is at the expense of seeing the whole picture.  Thus, where, Postman sees a conflict between technology and society others might see it as simple one piece of the complex puzzle that is societal change.

References

Chandler, D. (1994). Biases of the ear and eye: “Great Divide” Theories, Phonocentrism, Graphocentrism & Logocentrism [Online]. Retrieved 28 September, 2009 from:
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/litoral/litoral.html

Grade 12 Graduation Rates (2009) 2003/4 – 2008/9. Ministry of Education downloaded on October 1st, 2009 from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/reporting/levels/catalogue.php

Ong, Walter (1982). Orality and literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen.

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage Books.

I read an interesting article in the New Yorker concerning the history and future of reading for pleasure. Ong and his theory of secondary orality are discussed in the article, but the work of Maryanne Wolf caught my eye (or my mind?). Here is an excerpt of  a section which made me think of this week’s readings and Ong’s theory that literate minds would not think as they do were it not for the technology of writing:

 “The act of reading is not natural,” Maryanne Wolf writes in “Proust and the Squid” (Harper; $25.95), an account of the history and biology of reading. Humans started reading far too recently for any of our genes to code for it specifically. We can do it only because the brain’s plasticity enables the repurposing of circuitry that originally evolved for other tasks—distinguishing at a glance a garter snake from a haricot vert, say.” (Crain, 2007,¶8)

If this is true, what are the long-term effects of such repurposing? Will we lose the ability to recognize garter snakes?  😉

I am of the opinion that the brain did not “rewire” to adapt to reading, but instead grew (created new connections, new synapses) from literacy. I suppose this could be what Wolf considers “repurposing”, and I admit I have not read her book. However, I don’t think our brain is rerouted resources from one area to another. I think our brains slowly formed new and effective pathways of thought.  What do you think?

(There is a nice discussion citing Ong and secondary orality in the article too!) Erin

Crain, C. (2007). Twilight of the books. The New Yorker. Available online 29, September, 2009, from http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2007/12/24/071224crat_atlarge_crain?printable=true

Here is a link to a really interesting site where they use words to create some very powerful pictures.  http://designm.ag/inspiration/text-art/. Text can literally  be used to create pictures, which is what text does in a more abstract sense.  It is through text whether it is a poem, instructions, a narrative, or just a name- the reader creates a picture from interacting with the text.

Reflections on Process – Choose your Avatar:

In reflecting on the past module, along with the terms and content, I am also reflecting on the process of participating in the course itself, and the various challenges we encounter in successfully navigating the technological requirements of the module….. things like learning how to create a blog entry and in particular the process involved in choosing an Avatar. The notion of the avatar has been part of the virtual landscape for a long time, however the process of choosing one for these entries here [which I will no doubt change at some point] was for me, not as simple as it might sound. I found that I got lost a little bit in searching for something which could in some way represent me…. in some visual way …even just to find a picture that could be considered neutral….so I referred to the definition again…to refresh my understanding of the term

An avatar from the Sanskrit word for “a form of self”, commonly used in many Indian languages) is a computer user’s representation of himself/herself or alter ego, whether in the form of a three-dimensional model used in computer games, a two-dimensional icon (picture) used on Internet forums and other communities, or a text construct found on early computer systems It is an “object” representing the embodiment of the user. The term “avatar” can also refer to the personality connected with the screen name or handle, of an Internet user
Okay, that didn’t really help so I thought then….lets revisit what the term Alter Ego means….An alter ego (Latin “the other I”) is a second self a second personality or persona within a person. It was coined in the early nineteenth century when early psychologists first described schizophrenia. A person with an alter ego is said to lead a double life. The term alter ego is commonly used in literature analysis and comparison to describe characters who are psychologically identical, or sometimes to describe a character as an alter ego of the author, a fictional character whose behavior, speech or thoughts intentionally represent those of the author.[Wikipedia: retrieved September 2009].
In the end, I choose an old crest from one aspect of my identity [my surname] and one side of family to represent me here…like them its rather odd, but at the same time, it is also very familiar to me, I am not sure it represents my alter ego or even my Identity in any way, but it works for me now, because it is really is a kind of fusion of text, of symbol [icon] of identity and of technology….

I am impressed with the creativity of my fellow students and the openness of the professors to allow this freedom.  As someone who is not very creative (!!!) I am learning that there is a great many ways to express ones ideas.  I appreciate the effort that each person has gone into to post unique and interesting descriptions.  In terms of using the community weblog as a learning platform I believe it lends itself to a more creative and open learning space.  I do like that the entries are posted by date and tags and it is up to the person creating the post to ensure that they make the entry correctly.  It will be fun seeing how this all develops.

Sarah

I am impressed by the amount of material that has been posted on the weblog. Although I am aware (obviously) that this is an online project taken on by multiple students, the sheer amount of work that has been gathered in a short amount of time is nothing short of impressive. One can only imagine how a classroom of students would react to seeing a large amount their work online. One slight critique is that if I was new to blogs I might have had a difficult time navigating the site. I have read some extremely informative opinions on the nature of technology and text. I’ve noticed that there are many different and open ended views on the definition and I’ve enjoyed reading all of these varied opinions.

This is my first online course, and I feel that this activity was a wonderful introduction to me. Ironically, I think that I may have spent more time online in the forums and weblog than I may have actually spent in a regular class.

I’m unsure how to answer the question about my opinion of the structure of the existing web. It’s not perfect, but it is what we have and we need to use the positive aspects to our best ability. The entire communicative and collaborative nature of the web is what attracts me to it as an educator. Everyone is able to add their opinion and views to the web regardless of their technical expertise. This activity is a perfect example of how this is possible.

Upon browsing various sites for multimedia related to text and/or technology, I stumbled upon this video.  Initially, I wanted to find two separate items with which I could create two separate entries, but this video provides a nice, although literal, juxtaposition of the two.

Text: What is it, exactly?

If I had been asked to define text 10, or even 5 years ago, I might have come up with something such as:

The words of something written; “there were more than a thousand words of text”; “they handed out the printed text of the mayor’s speech”;

the main body of a written work (as distinct from illustrations or footnotes etc.); “pictures made the text easier to understand”
    (From: wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

Today, I have a slightly different understanding of what text is.  Having read several definitions and analyses of the origin of text, today I believe that text is or can be considered to be:

• A representation of meaning and language
• written word
• oral word
• represented through media such as video or sill image
• is a part of literacy
• authoritative or questionable
• dynamic rather than static
• uniquely human

As educators, our definition of text will impact our teaching.  Is it acceptable, for example, for language arts students to create a video in place of writing am essay? Is it necessary that teachers ensure all forms of text are taught and practiced?

My response to this is that in B.C., we are able to do so. For example, the language arts curriculum, even at the elementary level, allows teachers to transcend the traditional boundaries put upon us by our former definitions of text and literacy.  Although there are mandated curricular goals for reading, writing, viewing and representing, we are able to move beyond the pages of the classics, and forge ahead into new text (and new media) spaces.  

Technology: From the Wheel to the Smart Phone

Technology, like text, has a complex definition, and similarly, if I had been asked 5 or 10 years ago to define technology, I probably would have said something about computers and telephones.  I find that it is almost easier to preface the word technology with some sort of adjective that narrows it down: digital technology, information technology, computer technology, assistive technology, medical technology and the like.

Princeton’s Wordnetweb defines technology as, “the practical application of science to commerce or industry” (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn).  My “newish” Oxford dictionary of English has a similar definition.  It is intriguing to me that a word that has so many varying connotations might have such a simplistic definition.  This is another reason why I chose to present my thoughts on both text and technology in the same post.

The Text/Technology Connection

In the video at the beginning of this post, we are able to see very clearly, and as I mentioned previously, quite literally, one link between text and technology.  We use technology every day to create text, whether it is “texting” on a cell phone, speaking to a friend on Skype, writing a grocery list with a pencil, or typing an essay on the computer.

As Ong (1982) proposes, “writing (and especially alphabetic writing) is a technology, calling for the use of tools and other equipment…[and] by contrast with natural oral speech, writing is completely artificial” (p. 80-81).  Upon looking back at the above list of possible daily “texts”, and thinking of other possibilities,  labelling writing itself as a technology makes good sense.

As we continue on our journey through “the changing spaces of reading and writing”, I anticipate feeling the need to revise and update my current thoughts on text and technology in the near future.  I suppose that is the beauty of a dynamic text space such as a weblog–it can always be a work in progress.

Cheers,

Stephanie

Initially I thought technology was all about tools- things to digs holes with- write things with- it was all about things.  I believe that technology is all about creating.  We use technology to create and display our ideas. Man develops technology to help solve problems sometimes, but not always.   Sometimes technology is developed for the sheer purpose of creating something- afterall who really needs an electric back scratcher!! Technology is tools for digging holes, but it is also text for displaying thoughts and feelings, it is music, and  it is art.  Martin Heidegger ( 1977)  suggests that technology is the revealing as art is revealing-  I think he is posing the question -” Is art and technology one and the same?”  and I think the answer to this is yes.

Fritzi Scheff demonstrating Magnavox for Fifth Liberty Loan in New York City, 1895, originally uploaded by Powerhouse Museum Collection.

“New” technology is being shown off here in the photo.

I selected a musical theme since music is termed the “universal language” and technology has provided a way for us to weave music into our life in a way that had never been possible. With high capacity portable players, we can immerse ourselves in our favourite tunes anywhere anytime. it is posited that so many songs have now been penned that the combinations of notes for a musical flow have been exhausted if one considers songs from all ages, all places. That is amazing to me.

The technology of music has blossomed in a way that allows us to hear a beautiful symphony without travel, the chants and drums of African and other world music at the flip of a key, and to record our own music using simple add-on technology for our computers.

Current home studio products exceed the multitrack capacities of the recording studios used by the Beatles. The proliferation of online distribution channels has revolutionized distribution.

The whole system surrounding music has significantly changed in the short history of recording. The sophistication of the tools as well. That is what appears to me to be the meaning of technology–both system and tools. The dictionary definitions I reviewed in OED and elsewhere are interesting from an etymologic perspective indeed but for simplicity, system and tools describes technology surrounding music.

I still like analog! Best wishes, Kathleen

“Technology” is almost as broad of a term as “text,” however; in the context of ETEC540, it’s a little easier to nail down.  My new understanding of these two concepts is that they clearly have something fundamental in common.  They are clearly both SYSTEMS.  Examining them together has helped me see this significant overlap.  Could we have “text” without “technology?”  No, because text is a technology of communication.  Could we have “technology” without “text?”

If you boil down all the definitions of “text” on medium heat and stirring often, what you get is essentially “language” soup.   Like an onion, both concepts can be deeply layered and infinitely complex, but both have the same general purpose.  Okay, so what is language then?  Well, it’s a system of communication.  And what’s the general purpose of an onion??  Well, to give us bad breath and make us cry.

Now that we have completed most of the assignments for Module One I would like to comment on the posting to the community weblog. I have found it very interesting to read the highly varied and creative responses of the students.  When for example, we were first given the assignment to create two responses to the word text and technology I drew a blank. Other than a dictionary definition I found myself perplexed where I should turn and what I could produce. Then, as people began to post their responses I felt more at ease (less of newbieitis??sp) and began to enjoy the exercise, use my own creativity and benefited immensely from the process. I also have found the form valuable in being able to read all the different ideas, views and opinions as well as engage in discussion and response. It has been a great deal of work but very worthwhile. (Plus, I have learned where to click and how to sign it now and am no longer getting lost somewhere on the cwl. )  As a teacher, I find it an excellent learning tool as there is a place for individual response and group discussion via post. I like it as it requires me to make connections and think critically, while at the same time establishing some impressions of classmates and their views.