Sunday, January 29, 2012
Post 5
Cell phones and the contracts which come with them are an every day advertisement I see. Mainly, this is by television commercials, but other forms of advertising is done by companies like Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T and Sprint. The Sunday paper typically has ads which might include ones for phones and plans and when driving outside of Athens, sometimes billboards have phone company ads. These companies appeal to the need to keep contact with the people you know whether this is through actual phone calls (who does that anymore?), texting, or using the data plan on the contract to update facebook or Twitter. Cell phones can help people to share faster and more often. Companies appeal to idea they can get you what you need immediately with their unlimited 4G and texting. Society today has this really selfish need to share everything about each person's individual life, and a cell phone/smartphone/iphone can do all of this. For any need, there's an app for that. The audience is high school age teens, all the way to older adults. Within this are people with various backgrounds including rushing businessmen/women trying to schedule appointments and calls and sports fanatics wishing to watch the game live on the go. There are also people looking to save some money so companies offer "great deals" as low as $69.99 a month to those who might want to begin using a phone or may be thinking of switching over to a new plan and a new carrier. Little children are not a target, and older adults not willing to change and learn new device are not either. Most cable networks have advertisements for phones so many people are exposed to a large number of these. Constraints for these companies are a phone is not absolutely necessary. Yes, they can make life easier especially when I lose my mom in the grocery store while back home. A quick text lets me know what is going on and where to find her, but a little searching would get me the same result. While companies try to create a family plan, families with little children are not going really be too interested. This depends on the decision of the parents as to what the appropriate age for their child to get a phone. This usually is not until later junior high. This leads into the pricing as another constraint. Parents have to decide at what age are they willing to spend a heavy amount on phones for themselves and their children.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Post 3: Greene and Kleine
The first article by Stuart Greene describes his mode of research as research by argument. One's research is based upon the idea of acting as though they are inserting themselves in a conversation. Everything he/she researches has been discussed and he/she is only getting swept into the conversation for a little while. One must understand what the topic is all about and what is important. Evidence and reason are needed to back up one's view of the conversation. Implementing a frame (perspective) is very important.
The second article by Michael Kleine refers to research as hunting and gathering. One collects data and reviews it to find what is (un)important. Patterns are searched for in the useful data acquired and these findings are translated into writing.
They each seem to be very fond of the mode of research they wrote about. Neither expressed doubts about their methods. Greene addressed a young adult audience experiencing college and having assignments of research writing in their classes. Essentially, both are for college students. Greene purposefully writes to people of that age. Kleine writes to professors, yet he writes to them with the idea that if they will change and expand upon their researching techniques, students will follow since professors are their role models. Students are indirectly targeted. While both articles were informative in their own ways, Greene's was more like reading an assignment. It is as though he is saying, this is the proper way to conduct research and write about it. It felt like the typical professor talking to a student. On the other hand, Kleine's article was more story-like as he addresses other professors by referring to himself and the intended readers as 'us.' I felt as though he was my friend discussing this really awesome and interesting experiment. Listening to his journey that led him to his findings was a new perspective and interesting perspective.
I honestly enjoyed reading Kleine's article more so than Greene's even though I was not his actual intended audience. I think part of me liked his experiment because he was saying proper books and variety of materials are great for research, but the hunting and gathering is also a student's independent work. We are all going to do it a little bit differently based on who we are. I feel it is easier to improve upon who one is than to completely change our style to a process Greene describes. I do not disagree with Greene. I think research by argument is a good process, but it is probably a little less like how I think about conducting research.
The second article by Michael Kleine refers to research as hunting and gathering. One collects data and reviews it to find what is (un)important. Patterns are searched for in the useful data acquired and these findings are translated into writing.
They each seem to be very fond of the mode of research they wrote about. Neither expressed doubts about their methods. Greene addressed a young adult audience experiencing college and having assignments of research writing in their classes. Essentially, both are for college students. Greene purposefully writes to people of that age. Kleine writes to professors, yet he writes to them with the idea that if they will change and expand upon their researching techniques, students will follow since professors are their role models. Students are indirectly targeted. While both articles were informative in their own ways, Greene's was more like reading an assignment. It is as though he is saying, this is the proper way to conduct research and write about it. It felt like the typical professor talking to a student. On the other hand, Kleine's article was more story-like as he addresses other professors by referring to himself and the intended readers as 'us.' I felt as though he was my friend discussing this really awesome and interesting experiment. Listening to his journey that led him to his findings was a new perspective and interesting perspective.
I honestly enjoyed reading Kleine's article more so than Greene's even though I was not his actual intended audience. I think part of me liked his experiment because he was saying proper books and variety of materials are great for research, but the hunting and gathering is also a student's independent work. We are all going to do it a little bit differently based on who we are. I feel it is easier to improve upon who one is than to completely change our style to a process Greene describes. I do not disagree with Greene. I think research by argument is a good process, but it is probably a little less like how I think about conducting research.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Post 2: Is Wikipedia Good For Me?
At this moment, I have not read the article "Wikipedia Is Good for You!?" by James P. Purdy. My thoughts on Wikipedia are it is a good site to refer to if one is curious to know a little bit more about an idea, but Wikipedia is not a credible source for research. I understand people can create websites to put what they please on it, but one is not as likely to do so just to put something that may not be true on it.
Wikipedia is very accessible for anyone to create an account to edit articles. I have heard stories from many people about their friends who get on a Wikipedia site and change something, perhaps about their hometown. For example, someone wrote they were a famous individual coming from the town. This was a false statement. Whether someone actually ever read it before it could be edited out is unknown to me, but it makes me consider the fact that maybe there are other false statements I read when I wanted to know more about a topic. I do not view the site at completely trustworthy. I know there are good people who write on the site for the sake of spreading knowledge, but I cannot guarantee these people are writing what I read.
In high school, any research paper assigned was, of course, required to have a reference page. Not one of the teachers at that school allowed for Wikipedia to be a credible source to be used. I feel these ideas are pretty much engraved in my mind because of this policy. I just feel I cannot give my trust to Wikipedia.
Now, about 40 minutes later, the article has been read. I am pleasantly surprised. My opinions were verified toward the beginning of the article about Wikipedia not being a very acceptable source in the eyes of teachers. I really like the idea of using Wikipedia to further the topic search one has for a research paper. I have done this a little before, but I never really thought about what I was actually doing or about how valuable this really is as it is blatantly put in the article.
While the article discusses the process of editors being very much encouraged to cite their sources (or risk their edit getting deleted), my concerns about the dependability still remain. Additions or changes are discussed and debated, but these are main articles which are searched often. With over 3.8 million Wikipedia sites, many of these are not maintained regularly. John Seigenthaler did not even maintain the Wikipedia site about himself. It took 132 days before those falsities were corrected. If someone researches an unusual topic to research, what is written is not guaranteed to be true.
The process which happen on Wikipedia about research-based writing and such are very good processes. Open discussion can always open new ideas the original author may never think about. This forces one to really review his/her work properly before and after gaining criticism (hopefully constructive) from others.
I do think Wikipedia has its benefits when doing research. I do think it is a good opportunity to learn more about different ideas. If not for use as a source, Wikipedia does well to begin the research process.
Wikipedia is very accessible for anyone to create an account to edit articles. I have heard stories from many people about their friends who get on a Wikipedia site and change something, perhaps about their hometown. For example, someone wrote they were a famous individual coming from the town. This was a false statement. Whether someone actually ever read it before it could be edited out is unknown to me, but it makes me consider the fact that maybe there are other false statements I read when I wanted to know more about a topic. I do not view the site at completely trustworthy. I know there are good people who write on the site for the sake of spreading knowledge, but I cannot guarantee these people are writing what I read.
In high school, any research paper assigned was, of course, required to have a reference page. Not one of the teachers at that school allowed for Wikipedia to be a credible source to be used. I feel these ideas are pretty much engraved in my mind because of this policy. I just feel I cannot give my trust to Wikipedia.
Now, about 40 minutes later, the article has been read. I am pleasantly surprised. My opinions were verified toward the beginning of the article about Wikipedia not being a very acceptable source in the eyes of teachers. I really like the idea of using Wikipedia to further the topic search one has for a research paper. I have done this a little before, but I never really thought about what I was actually doing or about how valuable this really is as it is blatantly put in the article.
While the article discusses the process of editors being very much encouraged to cite their sources (or risk their edit getting deleted), my concerns about the dependability still remain. Additions or changes are discussed and debated, but these are main articles which are searched often. With over 3.8 million Wikipedia sites, many of these are not maintained regularly. John Seigenthaler did not even maintain the Wikipedia site about himself. It took 132 days before those falsities were corrected. If someone researches an unusual topic to research, what is written is not guaranteed to be true.
The process which happen on Wikipedia about research-based writing and such are very good processes. Open discussion can always open new ideas the original author may never think about. This forces one to really review his/her work properly before and after gaining criticism (hopefully constructive) from others.
I do think Wikipedia has its benefits when doing research. I do think it is a good opportunity to learn more about different ideas. If not for use as a source, Wikipedia does well to begin the research process.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Post 1: A little bit about me and my English history.
I am Erica Ann Toussant and am a student at Ohio University located in beautiful Athens, Ohio. I came from a small town, Minerva, in Northeast Ohio. While it was a nice place to grow up, I am hoping the civil engineering degree I earn will take me somewhere new but not too far away from home. While I enjoy learning math and science related topics, in my free time, I love the arts. This ranges from reading novels, to photography, to oil painting, all the way to playing classical piano compositions.
My first college class was English 151 at 8am Monday thru Friday. While I always did well in English and writing, they were never my strongest subjects. English 151 was not extremely demanding , but I had a hard time with the class. Writing a paper takes me about twice as long as the average person. My mind blanks so I constantly get stuck and have a hard time starting againg. I found the professor's grades on my paper's rewarding since writing them took so much time. I found peer editing uncomfortable. My professor was all about peer editing, of course. I was surprised to find how my AP English class in high school seemed to be harder than my freshman English course.
Now, I am a junior in English 308J. The general amount of work and effort required does not seem as though it will exceed any other English related class I have taken. Writing papers and making a presentation is not completely new to me, but blogging and editing Wikipedia articles causes me to feel a little nervous because this is not something I have ever done. It also worries me that my grade is based fully on the opinion of the professor. All I really want to get is a nice grade. I may be naive, but I am not sure if this course really can impact how I finish off the rest of my college education and who I am in the professional world.
I am curious as to how this course will work out. So I am doing my best to keep an open mind about what is to come.
My first college class was English 151 at 8am Monday thru Friday. While I always did well in English and writing, they were never my strongest subjects. English 151 was not extremely demanding , but I had a hard time with the class. Writing a paper takes me about twice as long as the average person. My mind blanks so I constantly get stuck and have a hard time starting againg. I found the professor's grades on my paper's rewarding since writing them took so much time. I found peer editing uncomfortable. My professor was all about peer editing, of course. I was surprised to find how my AP English class in high school seemed to be harder than my freshman English course.
Now, I am a junior in English 308J. The general amount of work and effort required does not seem as though it will exceed any other English related class I have taken. Writing papers and making a presentation is not completely new to me, but blogging and editing Wikipedia articles causes me to feel a little nervous because this is not something I have ever done. It also worries me that my grade is based fully on the opinion of the professor. All I really want to get is a nice grade. I may be naive, but I am not sure if this course really can impact how I finish off the rest of my college education and who I am in the professional world.
I am curious as to how this course will work out. So I am doing my best to keep an open mind about what is to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)