658 Week 1 - Blog 1

Lanham:

The first part of Richard Lanham's "The Implications of Electronic Information for the Sociology of Knowledge" confused me. This confusion may have come from my relativeness newness with the graduate program discourse, but it I also believe it arose from Lanham's convoluted discourse. Lanham's focus on technology took him from his obvious speciality, literature, yet when he proposes his class material (468), i.e. the Shakespeare class, he hits his stride and lays down some serious composition pedagogy that we can relate to. The notion of students perusing the class internet website, each other's work, making movies, and adding artwork to assignments - as we are now doing, is an excellent pedagogy. It delves into our humanness, our common bonds of sharing, our common fears and joys, and also breaks down walls between colleagues.

Lanham further includes a list of "fundamental changes" (472) affected by technology in the humanities operating system:

- affects the undergraduate "major"

- affects what traditional graduate disciplines will study as well as how they will study it

- affects affects libraries because it affects books, and in the most intimate way

- affects, therefore, library buildings and the budgets thereof

affects professional specializations and departmental structures, and therefore university administrative structures at all levels

In all, Lanham's observations point to some deficits, as in budget cuts, but the notions of a changing curriculum affected by the positivity of technology seems to be helpful. As for Lanham's notion that libraries and books are fading into obscurity, he need only read Thomas Mann's book on research. Having just read the first part of this influential book, which points to the fallacy of the belief that books are going the way of the dinosaur, Lanham would observe that a belief that anything can take down the trusty, comfortable, and familiar print of a book is just that, a fallacy.

Lemke:

Lemke's ideas are sincere, yet I wonder what such a virtual world takes from us. Lemke's focus is to bring technology into our lives and schools on a massive scale, and he sees this as an absolute, so he suggests why not embrace technology (87). Further, he views interactive programs of literacy not as fiction, but as soon-to-be reality. In his world, and I may have misunderstood, it seems teachers will be replaced by computer models that adapt to a students needs. Further, Lemke's essay expands out from literature into the everyday world. In his VR World, he mentions burrowing with insects, walking on Mars, or grasping molecules (90). Yet these virtual realities are only virtual, they are not real. And this feels like a weakness. Mind you, it would be fun to walk on Mars or fly to the moon, but why do we not feel content with our lives? Why do we need over-stimulants to make us feel content? And why aren't flesh and bone teachers good enough to teach our students? I am reminded of an experiment done with baby chimpanzees in the 70's. One baby was allowed to be with his mother, another to see his mother occasionally, and another baby recieved no contact. The no-contact baby soon died and the "occasional contact" baby had severe behavioral problems while the baby allowed to be with his mother grew up healthy.

So my question for Lemke is - does his model take the human out of being human? If we put a student in a VR world without interaction with a real teacher, will that create a "Stepford" child? Along with course content and learning, isn't socialization and human contact important?

In the end, I concur with Lemke that technology is extremly valuable in life and school, and I appreciate his passion; however, having lived for many years in the mountains, I wonder what it would feel like not to walk in a real forest, but to stroll under a simulated pine canopy. And as a child, what would it feel like to get my daily lessons from a computer simulation? According to Lemke, I do not have to wonder, for it is coming. Maybe, may-be...