In this Sunday’s edition of the News & Observer, I found an interesting article on academic dishonesty, or so they call it. The article discusses how internet sites are now offering false notes to get you out of a bind. Sample falsified documents that are now available on the website are doctor’s notes, funeral programs, jury summons, etc. It goes one step beyond “the dog ate my homework” to excuses for grown-ups. The authors state that the websites may not be making any great changes, meaning that they are not offering anything different than what people were able to do on their own anyway….interesting, this sounds a lot like the discussion we had last week about plagiarism in the classroom. I wonder how much of this discussion changes when I think of plagiarism both outside of the academic classroom and with adults? Our entire discussion and thought of plagiarism typically hinges on the notion that adolescents are engaging in plagiaristic acts. Even more so, it hinges on this notion that they are stupid and need to be caught by us instructors.

I think this whole idea lends nicely to the article I read this week, Was Foucault a plagiarist? Hip-hop sampling and academic citation. What happens when we remove plagiarism from the context of stupid adolescents to adults and professionals as in the case of music? Many modern hip- hop songs incorporate portions of older songs within them. A well incorporated arrangement can really add to the popularity of a modern song. Personally, I love it when I hear a familiar old song in a new one. But the question of ethics still rises to the surface here. I think the key is what the author addresses in the article- new meaning. Perhaps the difference between plagiarism in an academic context and in music sampling has little to do with words, traceability or the age of the “offender.” Perhaps, the difference between these two examples lies in the new meaning that is created in either scenario. In any circumstance, establishing a new meaning or a new interpretation of the original material is essential when using a former work. I am not so concerned with the notion of plagiarism and fair use as propagating capitalism as I am in making something new out of old uses.

I am a little torn to the extent to which I believe the future of writing should include digital media. I know even the thought of this is a little awkward since I am taking this course in the area of digital media and rhetoric. Let me first say that I can see the natural combination of technology in the classroom in most disciplines. There is something, however, about this thing called writing. It’s like a little bit of a sacred cow to me.

In one sense, I really relate to Johnson-Eilola (1998) who challenges our thinking of writing from something that occurs in solitude and as a result of private reflection to a process. To me writing has been a type and shadow of how other things in our society have evolved as well. Where would we be if we never evolved into anything new? It is in this spirit that I think of the place of media in writing. The funny thing is that I do not consider myself at all planted or vested in any way in the writing or rhetoric fields of study. As I read the Lunsford piece, I just had strong emotions for some reason in how media was interacting with the writing classroom. In it, she talks about using multimedia texts in the writing classroom to discuss texts translated from one form of media to another. I think it elicited strong emotions because it seems like one approach to critique or incorporate media in the disciplines but it is an entirely different conversation to talk about media as the basis for learning other disciplines. 
        Perhaps my internal conflict is the same thing I have grappled with all along- to what extent do I feel that technology should be a part of my everyday life? Maybe because I myself went through most of my education without technology so advertently in my face, I expect that that would be the norm. Maybe I have a fear that I will be left behind if I do not know what the next big thing to revolutionize our world will be? The truth is that I am just not sure, I can only honestly reflect upon the reactions that I feel. This week for apparently no reason at all, I have some reservation about the way that technology seems to be beneficial in the classroom. But then again, I am sure that my reaction is based upon many, many experiences that I might not even begin (or pretend) to understand.

After reading Opening Spaces by Sullivan & Porter a couple of things come to mind. First, I am thinking about my own process/ journey of being a reflective scholar. Sullivan and Porter suggest that much of what we do, particularly in conceptual thinking and methodology is done unreflectively. I wonder how much this sort of mechanical operation describes what I do?

Now that I am nearing the end of my own coursework and preparing to begin the doctoral dissertation, I sense there is a lot of truth to this. But as a quantitative researcher, what options have I been given? As a scholar-in-training, I would not know any other way to conduct research other than the one that has become so pervasive to me. Just as Sullivan & Porter describe, we are taught to research what others have already found to be true. From this point, we find a flaw, an omission, or another question. Then, we either re-create or seek to find the answer to our new question. I have not been taught that conducting research is a process of finding my own voice or somehow growing as a direct result of my work, although, over time, I would certainly expect this to occur. The authors summarize Hollingsworth’s (1994) research on pg. 61 which details some of the differences between traditional and feminist practices. The funny thing is that, after reading this, I identify with the feminist manner of conducting research, yet I question why this style is related to feminism at all. Why does feminist framework begin with a conversation or include transformational learning or the incorporation of other theories? What does this style have to do with my role as a female? On the contrary, aren’t these simply good practices of scholarship-period? Discussions like these are important in that these questions cause me to think about my work- how I design studies and how the results are interpreted. I appreciate that Sullivan & Porter call for a critical look at research and practice, while emphasizing that critical is not equitable with negativity. What a breath of fresh air to me!

Another thing that I have struggled with is the apparent dichotomy that exists between research and practice. As someone who is continuing to learn the system, it seems incredibly odd to me that research and practice would be on opposing ends of the spectrum. I get the opportunity to sit in on some faculty meetings in my department. I constantly hear about this debate- about how practical research is to practitioners and how research is adapted to what practitioners see on a daily basis. Hmm…. I still can’t figure out the divide. There is obviously good reason for the two teams to form a sort of alliance for the greater good. But we just can’t seem to get on the same page or speak the same language. If this is true, then it seems as though scholars are just “producing knowledge” for ourselves and what practical good is that?

I am feeling quite indifferent about the readings this week. While I am genuinely concerned about issues of diversity, I am not sure to what extent I believe these issues must be addressed in college classrooms, particularly composition and communication classes. I have always seen my own writings as deeply personal forms of disclosure. If I write about my race, gender or religion, it is an act of expression. But, it is because I choose to do so. In Jonathan Alexander’s piece, he discusses a criticism that a student felt he was promoting a homosexual agenda. I understand his foundational point that homosexuality is intended to take some form of persuasive discourse to gain new membership. On the other hand, as a student, if this student signed up for a course in writing and got only one perspective of change, they have a right to voice their concern. Higher education is about expanding our views and thinking critically. Personally, I have had nothing but professional interactions on my college campuses. To the extent that diversity is obvious to me, like seeing that a woman is a woman, someone has an accent like from a foreign country, or that a professor may be a minority, I have no concern with sharing our unique experiences. One’s sexuality and in some case disability seems a little evasive to me in that it may not be obvious to the student. Why would a professional feel the need to share what is not obvious or applicable to the classroom? Certainly, in context, I think these issues are really important to be discussed in higher education. But, I don’t think it should be the secondary agenda of the classroom to expose students to these issues. The focus and goal is simply too narrow.

            In another piece, Lisa Gerrard discusses the feminist research in computers and composition. I also feel somewhat detached from this piece. While many of her examples applied to me (like not feeling as competent with computers as some of my male counterparts) I tend to attribute this with other items rather than my gender. In my case, inequitable computer experiences were related to economics, race, and perhaps geography. Is that in and of itself a shortcoming of the feminist argument or I am oblivious to the effects of my gender all together? If people are complex, I find it incredibly difficult to attribute inequality to just one thing such as gender. Gerrard also speaks of women not being taken seriously in virtual spaces. In my own cyber world, I do not feel this way at all! Perhaps this is because I am not in the field of computer programming, advanced design or something related. I simply make the internet and computer and the sites I visit work for me. All of the talk about making separate games and software reminds me so much of another discussion that people eventually rejected- affirmative action. If I agree that women are disadvantaged in this way, then is the right resolution to create unique and more frequent opportunities for women?

This week’s topic is close to home for me. Seems like I am so ingrained nowadays that I will be left behind if I do not embrace technology, even instructionally. I was recently asked to teach an undergraduate course at a university. I was really excited because I’d previously only taught at community colleges and was very interested to make the cross-over so to speak. I found out, though, that I was going to be team-teaching or with another instructor. Now, I’m all about collaboration and working with others but this was new territory. Long story short is that the experience turned out to be one of the most challenging times ever. Not only were the co-instructor and I completely incompatible, but I also was really into incorporating new things to the curriculum and my partner was more traditional.

My area makes a big fuss about teaching online. Unlike what some of the authors suggested might happen, we employ full-time, tenure-track professors to teach many of the courses. In fact, as soon as I was hired, I was booted off to training in WebCT vista so that I could keep up with all of the instructional needs. It was one of the very best things for me now that I think about it. On the flip side, I have taken a number of classes as a student online, including independent study to which I have my own opinions of immediacy, student-faculty interaction, and my overall learning. I am careful, as one author put it, not to be too far on either side of the spectrum on the uncritical admiration or complete rejection of distance learning. I can understand the shortcomings of this format, but for me distance learning will always be a preference. This is because as an adult, I am far more concerned with the accessibility of education that fits into my busy life. Living an hour away from my university, distance courses allow me to save a two hour waste of time and money in travel alone. I can focus more time into thoughtful reflection and the quantity and quality of reading that is required of my graduate program. I am so grateful for the very choice I have in making my own decisions in how I would like to receive instruction. Afterall, isn’t that what education is all about, aiding people in becoming attentive to their own needs and thoughts?

This week I am most interested in commenting about the article on free software and open source technologies by Reilly & Williams. After reading this article, I feel somewhat enlightened about the nature of choice in the use of technologies. As a student and instructor, I have so often taken for granted the technologies that are supported by my institution. If I am honest, I would admit, that searching for my own open source technology has never been an option for me. I am not sure if privacy, simplicity, or unfamiliarity has been the biggest issue.

My main contention with the article was that the authors imply that OSS systems may be better than the commercial ones often used by institutions. Is the idea that free software and OSS systems are better by the nature of being available to everyone free of charge? Hmmm…While I see the benefits of economic and political changes with the OSS systems, I also see a major flaw. OSS seems to neglect an important issue of privacy for instructors. For many of the same criticisms that the authors identify, such as the institution having rights to enter or access class materials without the expressed permission of the author/ instructor, OSS assumes that instructors want to share the content of their course for the world to see. Although some of the newer technologies can be designed with permissions, it still doesn’t escape the basic idea that instructors may not want the courses they’ve designed to be potentially available to the general public. To me, there is a great divide between open content for collaboration and open content for the sake of public knowledge. In general, it seems as though the more public and open content becomes, the less it is regarded. Such is the example with information now made available on the world wide web. After nearly 20 years, scholars are still debating how appropriate this form of open content is in the classroom.    

In addition to issues of privacy, there are also questions of how simple open software and operating systems are. The greatest benefit of their commercial counterparts is the large proportions of corporate budgets dedicated to research and development. Using a university- sponsored system has just been simpler for me. First, to use the systems do not require extensive downloads or maintenance. Many tools are also ingrained within a variety of tools that are useful for an educational environment, making these systems more of a one-stop-shop. It seems to me that less of an emphasis on learning the technology frees up time to critically focus on the course material.

Finally, there is a lot to be said for what is familiar to us. Even with some variation, it seems far more useful for me to learn a university-sponsored system that is used at a number of institutions than to learn new ones with every new change. I make no excuses, I am a creature of habit and I appreciate consistency.