Reading and Technology

Friday, September 24, 2010

“The Future of Reading”

By

Johan Lehrer

Today’s technology is growing at an even more elevated speed then ever before. But, what happens when something so basic as reading is turned into an Internet activity?

In Johan Lehrer's “The Future of Reading”, he makes it very clear who his receptive audience should be: the average citizen that is highly involved in reading and is among the younger generations. Lehrer's point within the article is to persuade the readers to not do away with hardcopies of books and to lessen the use of technology in the aspect of reading. He wants to support the idea of keeping books around and doing away with things like the iPad and the Kindle. The biggest appeal of the article is how Lehrer manages to use arrangement when it comes to organizing his thoughts, opinions, and scientific facts.

At the start of the article, Lehrer discusses his love for books. He stated when he was coming through an airport and his suitcase had gone over the weight limit, he chose to dispose of his clothes as opposed to his beloved books and novels. Lehrer makes his argument by stating, "My problem is that consumer technology moves in a single direction: It’s constantly making it easier for us to perceive the content." He believes that by constantly letting technology run these aspects of our lives that it is going to make it easier and easier, ultimately failing us with the ability to use our imaginations and grow intellectually. Referring to our readings, this article would be a perfect example of Gross’s article, “The Arrangement of the Scientific Paper.” Gross states “Reading experimental or descriptive papers in science, we invariably experience an inductive process, a series of laboratory or field events leading to a general statement about natural kinds.” This article is also relative to Bacon through its style and arrangement. Lehrer takes similar steps and approaches to reach the idea of his “experiment” and “hypothesis.” Lehrer manages to make his “experiment” clear with discussing the decline of reading done through hardcopies of books. This is where he is able to make his “hypothesis” for his argument clear in that technology is useful, but believes that the more reading done through the Internet will slowly keep younger minds from expanding.

All of Lehrer's examples begin with personal experiences and opinions and move more into scientific testing. Lehrer guides the readers into actually studies that have taken place with neuroscience to help prove his theory. Referring back to Gross’s article, this could fall under the “Methods and Materials” category.

Lehrer breaks down the argument by discussing that there are two different pathways to read. The first method is known as the ventral route. This route, as Lehrer describes it, is direct and efficient, and is a large part of how we read today. Lehrer breaks it down further by stating, “We see a group of letters, convert those letters into a word, and then directly grasp the word’s semantic meaning.” He refers to the neuroscientist, Stanislas Dehaene, to explain how the familiarity works in the part of the cortex in the brain referred to as visual word form area. Lehrer argues that this is what makes reading effortless to us and we don’t have to think about the words on the page.

The second method is called the dorsal stream, which Lehrer makes clear that this is the better way to read. It is “turned on” when we are having to pay closer attention to a sentence. Whether it be involving big or awkward words we don’t know or bad handwriting. Lehrer states that many scientists believed that this became inactive after adults learned to read but have come to find out that many adults are still occasionally having to comprehend difficult texts. This was clearly Lehrer’s favorite pathway in his argument because it is a way to keep the brain active and making readers have to comprehend words more to be able to keep learning.

After Lehrer makes his argument, he is able to jump into Gross’s definition of “Results.” He clearly makes his point of what readers in the generation (and future generations) of growing technology should do. He discusses not only what readers should do, but those who provide the technology for reading texts as well. “So, here’s my wish for e-readers. I’d love them to include a feature that allows us to undo their ease, to make the act of reading just a little bit more difficult. Perhaps we need to alter the fonts, or reduce the contrast, or invert the monochrome color scheme. Our eyes will need to struggle, and we’ll certainly read slower, but that’s the point: Only then will we process the text a little less unconsciously, with less reliance on the ventral pathway.” Lehrer presents an argument with style and arrangement in a convincing way. He proves his theories through scientific efforts and manages to engage many different perspectives. He involves not just parents, but children and venders of technology products as well. He makes a persuasive argument that utilizes Gross’s arrangement for writing a scientific paper.

Does September 11th have more than one meaning?

Friday, September 17, 2010

“One Day, Now Broken In Two”

By Ann Quindlen

We as American’s all remember the horrific events that occurred on September 11, 2001. But, before that year, what did the date actually mean? Was it a loved one’s birthday? An anniversary? Did it have any significant meaning? I know for myself, it did not. No matter whatever event actually took place before that day, it is clear that now the specific date of September 11^th has a particular meaning.

In Ann Quindlen’s brief article, “One Day, Now Broken In Two,” aims her argument towards to idea of patriotism, which the intended audience could relate to. Quindlen manages to describe her own personal meaning to the attachment of that day: the birth of her son. But now, she states, “The day approaching will always be bifurcated for me: part September 11, the anniversary of one of the happiest days of my life, and part 9-11, the day America's mind reeled, its spine stiffened and its heart broke.” Quindlen is able to take on one of the most sensitive and talked about issues of our generation and is able to say what all Americans have felt after the disaster.

Even though Quindlen had a personal effect by her son’s birthday, the date of 9-11 may just be that. She seems to believe that this date was significant to everyone before the attacks. In the article it is clear that Quindlen is very patriotic and tries to relate to what every American had felt that day. One thing that the article manages to address in a nation wide standpoint is describing how we as American’s have tried to mend after the incident. Quindlen talks about a time when she was in another country and someone had asked her if everything was back to normal after the heartbreaking events. Quindlen replied saying, “I said yes. And no. The closest I could come to describing what I felt was to describe a bowl I had broken in two and beautifully mended. It holds everything it once did; the crack is scarcely visible. But I always know it's there. My eye worries it without even meaning to.” Though the thoughts and feelings that Quindlen discusses are highly touching and heart felt, that is simply are there is to the article: thoughts and feelings. There is no critical point.

When comparing this article to Kinneavy's “Basic Purposes of Composition” chart, it would have to be believed that it would be found under Referential category under a Diagnosis. According to Kinneavy’s definition of aims, I would have to say that Quindlen’s aims of discourse in her article are very complicated. Though Quindlen’s article is touching and states concrete facts, there is no real sense of persuasion. She is just stating a personal experience from what the specific date means to her. By no way is she trying to persuade the reader of what that day means or should mean. This becomes a problem when trying to classify the article in a specific category. Mainly this is because she is not making a particular point within the article. It is simply based on feelings and personal reactions to the event. She doesn’t stop to address or acknowledge that someone else who is reading the article may have a different stance or viewpoint on the occurrence. Although the article is touching, it lacks a certain point or even any kind of persuasion.

From the perspective of an American, and someone who has lost a friend in the war, I sympathize and agree with Quindlen’s feelings and emotions about what happened on September 11^th. The lack persuasion, however, is a drawback from the article to other readers. Had the article had more of a persuasive point about why exactly the date of 9-11 meant something more, it would have been a much more effective article.

Musgrove's use of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos

Friday September 10, 2010

“The Real Reasons Students Can’t Write” Laurence Musgrove

We have all struggled with writing at some point as students. But, in our society today test scores are dropping and level of difficulty in the classroom is getting lower. So what do we do to redeem the ability to think in our students?

In Laurence Musgrove’s article, “The Real Reasons Students Can’t Write”, he brings up the much talked about issue of students who are with the inability to correctly form and write an academic paper. Musgrove begins the article by taking use of the concept of pathos.According to Selzer’s article, “Rhetorical Analysis: Understanding How Texts Persuade Readers,” Selzer defines pathos, “for persuasive reasons in an argument,” (p.284). He uses his ability to center the audience’s attention to his proposal by using his efforts to persuade and provide personal experience. “I have been teaching first-year writing for many years, and I have directed rhetoric and compositions programs at two universities. During this time, I have had many students who demonstrate passive aggressive behavior when it comes to completing writing projects.” In this observation he argues that students’ attitudes and behavior towards writing is one of the biggest faults unrecognized by the academic system. This observation makes a connection to the reader by how they can depend upon him from a professional standpoint as a professor of English and give the audience a better understanding of his point of view. Here Musgrove is able to also demonstrate the concepts of ethos, meaning that his method of honesty (often harsh at times) gains public credibility. Selzer definesethos as, “features of texts related to the trustworthiness and credibility of the rhetor,”(p. 284).

Though his initial statements seem harsh, Musgrove gives sympathy to the audience by stating, “But let’s not just blame the students. Most college professors would prefer to complain about poor writing than simply refuse to accept it.” Musgrove’s point within this article is to make a clear penalty for bad behaviors in writing. Musgrove proposes that universities being able to issue students “writing tickets” by their professors when they are not meeting the minimum requirements for writing assignments. This is where Musgrove takes on a good concept of logos. Again, Selzer defines logos as “sound reasons that emerge from intellectual reasoning.” (p. 284) Though the measure of discipline seems harsh, Musgrove describes the positive aspects of the “writing tickets.” He describes how we would “have to take the writing-across-the curriculum more seriously.” He acknowledges that we would have to issue many tickets in the beginning, but this would force students, as well as universities, to put more effort into writing. He is also asking the universities to take more steps by recruiting, hiring, and training, effective tutors.

Though the issue with education is a very controversial topic right now, Musgrove makes a justified point. In many cases, discipline is often looked at negatively, but Musgrove is trying to build a more positive outlook on ways that students and universities can work together to make the environment in the writing world more enjoyable. He skillfully uses the concepts of ethos, pathos, and logos with the delivery, arrangement, and style with his article. He manages to have concrete statements that go behind his sound reasoning. By using positive effects of his suggested disciplinary measures and personal methods of persuasion, he is able to gain and attain the attention of the intended audience.