I feel that both authors for this week's readings were really well grounded. Although, I do have to admit that I thought Lanham was complaining for almost half of his article.
Lanham brings up some really good points about the idea that people are really clinging to an archaic idea of what aesthetic is and what we in Lit departments try to reinforce is an idea that was around before computers. Basically, its about time that someone redefines the aesthetic that we are all so obsessed with. He makes some really bold professions about how technology makes it possible for him to teach a music appreciation course while having an insufficient education to do so... I would really disagree. Yes, the technology is there but regardless, there is a major component that a knowledgeable professor can offer that the layman cannot... ... even through another person's course materials, expertise cannot be faked and the specialization of professors in colleges is not, in my opinion, in danger. I do agree with him when he says that the advances in technology open up large new realms of possibilities for collaboration, collaborative education and such. I do think that is an extremely helpful part of our new technology.
Kohl, Liebert and Metten discuss that specific influence in one of its most effective forms: Wikipedia. I'm a huge supporter of the Wikipedia basic source for information. I'm glad that it is recognized scholastically for what it is.
I'm excited for this week's class. I'm glad we are reading people who have accepted technology and its place in our society, professional lives and classrooms.
i kind of found Lanham confusing when he stated that he would be able to teach a course on music after just researching or whatever on the internet. Yes, the internet is a great resource...and i know things are so much more convenient and better now that we have it. We do have access to so much information that people before never even dreamed of. However, it is nothing compared to real experience. Just like in last week's reading, i do not think that a doctor should be qualified to do a surgery after just practicing in a digital version. Teaching a class because you have legitimately studied and put time into that area and have experience in that area gives you a lot more credentials than what just researching some stuff on the internet does.
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to say that I totally agree about looking forward to class and the chance to read authors who support advances in technology and talk about them. It's fun!
ReplyDeleteI believe Lanham's point was that new and emerging digital resources (at the time he wrote the article) will help students with self-guided learning experiences. Instead of constricting students creativity with a narrow and unchanging curriculum, the internet allows them to pursue things they are interested in, in an academic sense of course. So, if the student was interested in applying concepts in his class to music, he has the freedom and ability to easily access the necessary knowledge. The role of the professor is than to guide the research, and help apply concepts to keep the study relevant.
ReplyDeleteI am also glad that Wikipedia is finally getting the credit it deserves among acadmeia. On someone's blog (I can't remember whose) they wrote about how the wikipedia article on abortion was well informed and un-opinionated. You'd think with anyone having access to this encyclopedia, there would be tons of un-informed, hate-filled rhetoric on there about how it equates to murder and genocide, but nothing like that is on that article. It does make people realize that with all the access to new kinds of information, our personal educations can reach all kinds of new heights.
ReplyDeleteDaniel,
ReplyDelete1) "When" the article was written is completely irrelevant to any point we could talk about in relation to "what" is actually being said which is an "argument that the aesthetics of electronic expression were laid out by twentieth century visual art before the computer was invented" (Lanham 162). Outside of the larger construct of its placement in time in relation to when we have read it, the point remains that it is still being talked about, or rather, should be talked about still.
2)Thanks for pointing out a point that I skimmed over when I shouldn't have: You are right: He was, to a certain extent, making a point about education reform. What I meant to say, and did so poorly, is that while this type of education is very useful (and we now use it quite a bit now, and which I have taken advantage of), it loses a big chunk of the quality of education.
I don't mean to say that Professor Winter's curriculum is not sufficient for Prof. Lanham to teach from but that, in this instance, the collaboration of the two professors would be a preferred form of education where both professors recreated a curriculum for the student, thus gaining the personal and specific expertise of both. I do think this could effectively be done with technology and without draining too much of Prof. Winter's time, as (s)he could communicate through email and give answers/lectures on questions that come up concerning musical intricacies while (s)he would not actually have to facilitate or monitor the student's understanding (as that would be up to Prof. Lanham, who would also be consistently in contact with Prof. Winter).
Anyway, thank you for pointing out an unclear thought in my writing, I find myself guilty of doing that more often than I am comfortable admitting to!
Spencer,
Thanks for the abortion page comment! That is really interesting... ... I'll have to go check that out. I think that is the cool thing about technology and the internet: It is the largest social contract we could all enter into and, in healthy spaces (like Wikipedia, rather than YouTube), it hopefully regulates, by use of Social Norms, what can be said, especially in a factual structure :)