The death of the book

I'd like to address the idea of the book's obsolescence that is brought up in the Writing Space chapters. The argument that an electronic text cannot be taken to bed is (even if that's a cliche) quite convincing. The tactile, physical entity that comprises a book simply cannot be replicated online. It also seems silly to pay for electronic access to a book, though I'd gladly pay money (when I have some) for a fresh bound book. As the digital age goes on, book stores have become even larger and more elaborate, so perhaps that's a sign that print is not going away. It's not difficult to imagine a device shaped like a book, but with an electronic screen that automatically displays the book of your choice after you pay a small fee to download it, much like iTunes. That could be taken to bed, certainly. With that, though, we lose the ability to own a used book, since we would not accumulate them. Also, it's impractical to expect children's book to be fully electronic in any form, since children like to touch books and turn the pages.

The idea of "unity and homogeneity" (10) that characterizes a book is something I take for granted. We know that digital files can and often do contain a little bit of everything. Few of us have a separate flash drive for each class. When we hold or make a book, however, we expect the content to be uniform. One exception might be a photo album, since putting in random photos doesn't seem like too large of a crime, as long as they are photos. Chronology is a rather dull way to organize, though it can be useful. Who, though, has his or her pictures neatly labled with dates? Can we think of other mediums that use uniformity, much like books?
Bethany

Distance Learning

The role play article mentions a compelling idea in that "Several studies have even proved distance education to be more effective than face-to-face instruction" (98). We might question what effective means, exactly, but I have found that the intensity of the learning is better achieved through online environments. This is perhaps the case because one needs to be present in mind. Being physically present in a classroom does not mean one's mind is engaged, but an online student cannot simply sit there. He or she must type and contribute.
The virtual peer review was a bit more difficult for me to make connections with, since peer review tends to imply working with one's peers in a classroom setting. As Breuch mentions, the virtual environment does filter social cues (43), and sometime having students face-to-face hiders their ability to be critical of one another's writing. My main concern with peer review is the lack of quality that comes from it. Not all, but many students write few comments, and even less that are helpful. I have not tried a virtual peer-review with my students, but it is something I could consider in the future. I like to think the virtual classroom will help students write stronger responses about the writing.
Hewett and Ehmann take a grassroots perspective to online training. Training needs to, they claim, simulate "ss close as possible the actual teaching situations in which they will find themselves after training is complete." Can an online environment be effective for training teachers (who will teach face to face)? These are issues worth exploring further, but the teacher shortage and the increasing number of available online courses might make for a heavier presence of the web in teacher training in the future.

Technology and language

I find that reading a history book on technology has an oxymoronic quality, though human technology has been around since people began manipulating their world, of course. Chapter five's (Hawisher's book) amusing title "1992-1994: Looking Forward is amusing." While 2006 is not that far removed from the early nineties, the technological leaps made since then in computers and writing have been astonishing. We learn that at the end of 1994, consumers could buy a Pentium system for under $2,000, as if that's a deal. Also amusing is the fact that "as the writing of this book, the Alpha 21164 is the fastest general-purpose micro processing chip in existence" (227). The discussion of numerical values in relation to computer speed is something with which I am not too familiar. I recognize if a computer is fast (which is why I cannot visit home that often. My parents dial up rarely works to connect to the web, and I always have online courses or students to communicate with) or if it holds a lot of information, but I need to develop a numeric sense of recognizing what different values mean. I had a 64 (whatever that refers to) computer a few years ago, and for my word processing needs it suited me fine and still does. I've since unhooked it and found that the death of floppy drives made it difficult for me to save my work using multiple machines. My dot matrix printer still looms largely in the corner, collecting dust. Now, with my video work, I do appreciate bigger and faster computers.
I also find it worthy to note that the internet was thought of in terms of metaphors (229). With something so new, it would have been nearly impossible to describe it in terms of itself. Now, I find that we use metaphors FROM the internet, since the general public (on college campuses at least) knows enough about internet to talk intelligently about its applications and uses. Goggle has become a verb. Blog has as well. Technology, then, changes our language. The relationship(s) between technology and language would be a topic worthy of further exploration.
Bethany

Discovering New Lands

Teaching digital rhetoric is a topic that brings to mind chaotic classrooms of overwhelmed students and failing technologies. If the technology cooperates and the students are able to keep up with any demonstrations, however, such teaching could be successful. I read the DigiRhet article with some skepticism, especially since it's difficult for students to make use of things like Facebook in productive academic ways. That is not their fault, since that space is intended for a social setting. Who are we (As Erin mentioned) to say the space should now be colonized by academia?
Some of the technologies mentioned in this article did seem fascinating, such as the "networked PlayStation console." I do wonder about technology's entrance into the classroom, however. In the "old" days, it was considered rude or inappropriate for students to read the campus newspaper in class. Countless professors always requested that we please not read the newspaper in class. Now, educators face tiny iPods, cell phones, etc. that come into the classroom with students. Do we colonize these spaces for academic use, or do we ban them? Or, do we do something entirely different? We cannot ignore them, though. That much is clear.
The article mentions beginning a digital rhetoric course with definitions. I wonder if students and instructors would define this term and others in the same way. Let's think about the following: A teenaged boy defines his videogame use a a socially relevant and relaxing way to spend free time with friends, while his parents define it as a waste of time and intellect. We might think about how we define spaces normally used for social purposes. How close can academia get to our students' personal lives?
Bethany