1) If you were asked by Congress to help them "specify precisely the kinds of uses of creative work that should be regulated by copyright law", what would your answer be? ( Lessig 269)
2) When we use interfaces such as youtube and google, do you think that we benefit equally from each other? Lessig speaks about the value that we give to sites such as these when we use them, 234-235, and I'm wondering if you feel that we get the same level of value in return. Is there a way that we potentially could if we do not currently?
A 3rd Question...we'll call it change?
I'm not sure where in Remix I read this, but I'm pretty sure that Lessig introduces the idea of Amateur Copyright Laws(?)...As I consider Lessig's example of a child uploading different things onto youtube and having to clear copyright laws for each clip used, Lessig 266, would it be beneficial to establish amateur copyright laws so that it would afford users an "easier" time when trying to clear copyright?
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Copyright and Plagiarism
I found myself really interested in the reading(s) for this week, because of the connotations that I feel are associated with both of them? haha I pose it as a question, because I'm not quite sure what, exactly, had me so fascinated with the reading(s) for this week...actually that's a lie.
The second piece, It wasn't me, was it?: Plagiarism and the Web by DeVoss/Rosati is especially interesting because it states that "first-year composition teachers have a key role in helping the students adapt to this space," this space being the Internet and the copyright/plagiarism laws that coincide with it (DeVoss/Rosati 153)...which continued to spark my interest as I began to think of the different ways in which I teach/introduce copyright/plagiarism into my 101 classroom, and whether not I am making clear distinctions between what is and is not plagiarism - as well as violating copyright laws. This becomes considerably more difficult because, as John Logie, author of Champing at the Bits: Computers, Copyright, and the Composition Classroom, states, "Whenever composition instructors use computer technology within their classrooms, they raise exponentially the likelihood that the work completed within their classes will run afoul of current intellectual property laws" (Logie 135). Essentially, we are always running the risk of breaking the rules of the United States Copyright laws that were last updated in the 1970's - and, as Logie asserts, this was a period where "the personal computer was still a prototype" (Logie 135)
We still have hope, however. As educators, we are allowed the opportunity to dance around copyright laws with the assistance of "fair use", which lets us use copyrighted materials in our classrooms as long as it is nontransformative - yet educators who fall in the gray area with their usage with be dealt with on a case by case reading of the what and how the information was used? And plagiarism, oh what a mess.
While I agree with Devoss/Rosati that plagiarism can be an occurrence due to a lack of understanding of how to properly integrate/work with outside material into one's own...I really disliked the feeling that I got when reading this. It seemed like as instructors they were telling us to be aware that students will plagiarize, but be careful because it is tricky...don't jump to the gun and say that its plagiarism, when it could be a lack of understanding of how to properly write from sources - but also don't let that be the student's excuse..."I thought I was doing it right. I was plagiarizing?"
These are both two very intricate fields, and the more I research them I find myself that much more confused. I wonder, as an instructor, if I have broken the copyright laws of those whose materials I've used in class...
Post Script: I've got major beef with the term/phrase "fair use".
The second piece, It wasn't me, was it?: Plagiarism and the Web by DeVoss/Rosati is especially interesting because it states that "first-year composition teachers have a key role in helping the students adapt to this space," this space being the Internet and the copyright/plagiarism laws that coincide with it (DeVoss/Rosati 153)...which continued to spark my interest as I began to think of the different ways in which I teach/introduce copyright/plagiarism into my 101 classroom, and whether not I am making clear distinctions between what is and is not plagiarism - as well as violating copyright laws. This becomes considerably more difficult because, as John Logie, author of Champing at the Bits: Computers, Copyright, and the Composition Classroom, states, "Whenever composition instructors use computer technology within their classrooms, they raise exponentially the likelihood that the work completed within their classes will run afoul of current intellectual property laws" (Logie 135). Essentially, we are always running the risk of breaking the rules of the United States Copyright laws that were last updated in the 1970's - and, as Logie asserts, this was a period where "the personal computer was still a prototype" (Logie 135)
We still have hope, however. As educators, we are allowed the opportunity to dance around copyright laws with the assistance of "fair use", which lets us use copyrighted materials in our classrooms as long as it is nontransformative - yet educators who fall in the gray area with their usage with be dealt with on a case by case reading of the what and how the information was used? And plagiarism, oh what a mess.
While I agree with Devoss/Rosati that plagiarism can be an occurrence due to a lack of understanding of how to properly integrate/work with outside material into one's own...I really disliked the feeling that I got when reading this. It seemed like as instructors they were telling us to be aware that students will plagiarize, but be careful because it is tricky...don't jump to the gun and say that its plagiarism, when it could be a lack of understanding of how to properly write from sources - but also don't let that be the student's excuse..."I thought I was doing it right. I was plagiarizing?"
These are both two very intricate fields, and the more I research them I find myself that much more confused. I wonder, as an instructor, if I have broken the copyright laws of those whose materials I've used in class...
Post Script: I've got major beef with the term/phrase "fair use".
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
The Digital Divide...
This week as I read Banks and Selfe & Selfe, I was reminded of what is called the "digital divide" and the intricacies involved within the term. Race, education, economic/social status, ect. have all been cited as contributing factors to the digital divide, and as stated in Banks' piece, "...systemic factors limiting the participation of people of color..." (Banks 21) However, as I continued with my reading, I found myself thinking "why is it that we end up in this endless cycle when we learn about Black freedom struggle? (Banks 11)
I no longer believe that the digital divide is a color "thing" or dealing mainly with African Americans because "I don't feel there is much of a divide anymore. The Internet is becoming relevant in our lives as a result of e-mail and chat sites, and African Americans are going online in droves" (Banks 35). In my opinion, the digital dived should focus its attention on access, and access alone. We should be more worried with simply trying to put technology in the hands of everyone, regardless of their color or how they got to where they are...the issue should be whether or not they have access to the technology or not. Furthermore, statements such as "computers are not part of black culture" (Banks 21) are 1. inaccurate and 2. should be left out of discussions. I'm not African American, but I am Trinidadian American which falls into the general "black" category, and I (and honestlyat least of 85% of my "black" friends) have grown up with a computer or the availability to reach one. Again, I assert that it isn't a "color thing", rather a "thing" of access.
So then, how do we allow access to all those in need? I'm not sure, but I do know that attempts have, and continue to be made. Banks refers to the Clinton Administration and their attempts to "wire all of America", and even the Bush Administration's attempts with the "No Child Left Behind Act". Regardless of how successful these attempts have been, even though I'm sure some could argue that they were both somewhat "successful", there are and continue to be attempts made to fix the problem. And, simultaneously, we have instructors who continue to allow access to all of their students in an attempt increase the level of technological literacy among all students.
As an English 101 instructor, I've pondered upon how I may incorporate technology into my classroom, so that every student would have the opportunity to have access to the compositional tool(s) that it provides. And, as I prepare to include technology into my pedagogy - my concern is that all students are able to experience it, not just those of a certain race or ethnicity...But getting back to what Banks said about African American literacy and technology...
I do agree that better incorporating technology into black history may serve as a more enhanced way of learning about it, but I'm still not convinced that...(unsure of how to most appropriately word my thought, so I hope to comeback to this). And besides, incorporating technology to any race, I think, would better benefit others as they are attempting to learn about their culture.
I think, in closing, all I'm trying to say is that I don't feel race should be the driving focus as to why some have access to technology. It could have been a contributing factor before, but I don't feel as if it is necessarily the case today...but, maybe I'm crazy and this is just my "privilege" speaking.
I no longer believe that the digital divide is a color "thing" or dealing mainly with African Americans because "I don't feel there is much of a divide anymore. The Internet is becoming relevant in our lives as a result of e-mail and chat sites, and African Americans are going online in droves" (Banks 35). In my opinion, the digital dived should focus its attention on access, and access alone. We should be more worried with simply trying to put technology in the hands of everyone, regardless of their color or how they got to where they are...the issue should be whether or not they have access to the technology or not. Furthermore, statements such as "computers are not part of black culture" (Banks 21) are 1. inaccurate and 2. should be left out of discussions. I'm not African American, but I am Trinidadian American which falls into the general "black" category, and I (and honestlyat least of 85% of my "black" friends) have grown up with a computer or the availability to reach one. Again, I assert that it isn't a "color thing", rather a "thing" of access.
So then, how do we allow access to all those in need? I'm not sure, but I do know that attempts have, and continue to be made. Banks refers to the Clinton Administration and their attempts to "wire all of America", and even the Bush Administration's attempts with the "No Child Left Behind Act". Regardless of how successful these attempts have been, even though I'm sure some could argue that they were both somewhat "successful", there are and continue to be attempts made to fix the problem. And, simultaneously, we have instructors who continue to allow access to all of their students in an attempt increase the level of technological literacy among all students.
As an English 101 instructor, I've pondered upon how I may incorporate technology into my classroom, so that every student would have the opportunity to have access to the compositional tool(s) that it provides. And, as I prepare to include technology into my pedagogy - my concern is that all students are able to experience it, not just those of a certain race or ethnicity...But getting back to what Banks said about African American literacy and technology...
I do agree that better incorporating technology into black history may serve as a more enhanced way of learning about it, but I'm still not convinced that...(unsure of how to most appropriately word my thought, so I hope to comeback to this). And besides, incorporating technology to any race, I think, would better benefit others as they are attempting to learn about their culture.
I think, in closing, all I'm trying to say is that I don't feel race should be the driving focus as to why some have access to technology. It could have been a contributing factor before, but I don't feel as if it is necessarily the case today...but, maybe I'm crazy and this is just my "privilege" speaking.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Aurality (orality) in the rhetoric/composition classroom
After reading Cynthia Self's piece, The Movement of Air, the Breath of Meaning" Aurality and Multimodal Composing, and Doug Hesse's response to Self's piece, I found myself seemingly in the same position I was in before I read either or the pieces. I have always thought that as a student, and now an Instructor of college level English 101, that aurality/orality has always played an integral part in the composition classroom.
As an English 101 instructor I feel that I have consistently given credit to aurality/orality in the classroom, and as a student I have witnessed the same. In the class that I instructed today I orally discussed the lecture to the class, they got together with their classmates and discussed and wrote down their assignment, and then proceeded to write in on the board and orally communicate their response to the task to the class for them to hear and see simultaneously. And, as a student, I can remember when last semester we had a most enjoyable time discussing/hearing/writing about the type of "vernacular expressive arts" education that Self introduces in her piece which she feels we may be deviating from (624).
In My Contact Zone Rhetoric(s) course, we had a section where we studied story telling and vernacular expressive arts. During this time we read some, discussed a few, and then were able to also hear actual expressive arts/storytelling experiences that we were then able to use along with the written material as we were becoming more familiar with the entirety of it all. I definitely understand the value that Self and her colleagues are placing on aurality/orality, and specifically the vernacular expressive arts, but to say oratorical performances, debates, orations, and declamations are used to "build students' general skill in public speaking" and not to "encourage specialized inquiry" is a little bit unfair. I feel that, although those are some results of those exercises, it is not all that they are limited too - if that was the case, then why wouldn't we simply send the students to the comm departments to learn and engage in those specific activities?
I really do appreciate the effort that Self is exhibiting with her piece, but because I am a student of rhetoric, and an Instructor who teaches his 101 course with the focus question "what is rhetoric", I find it a little insulting that she would say "as teachers of rhetoric and composition, our responsibility is to teach students effective, rhetorically based strategies for taking advantage of all available means of communicating effectively and productively as literate citizens" (644). I feel confident in stating that the vast majority of rhetoric and composition instructor understand that part of their obligations to their students is to teach them all available means of communication because that is a piece to the actual definition of rhetoric. I even have had a colleague of mine already assign the Public Service Announcement (PSA) assignment that she offers up as an effective way to incorporate aurality/orality into the classroom (643). A lot of the information that I reading seemed like it has already been a part of the English field...which could also be a result of her articles and others in the field.
I did really appreciate the response from Doug Hesse, because we seem to share similar thoughts as it pertains to this discussion of aurality/orality. I, too, feel as if "I'm inclined to make a place for the aurality in my own teaching even as I ponder whether I'm overstepping or sidestepping professional roles that best serve student and social interests" (605).
As an English 101 instructor I feel that I have consistently given credit to aurality/orality in the classroom, and as a student I have witnessed the same. In the class that I instructed today I orally discussed the lecture to the class, they got together with their classmates and discussed and wrote down their assignment, and then proceeded to write in on the board and orally communicate their response to the task to the class for them to hear and see simultaneously. And, as a student, I can remember when last semester we had a most enjoyable time discussing/hearing/writing about the type of "vernacular expressive arts" education that Self introduces in her piece which she feels we may be deviating from (624).
In My Contact Zone Rhetoric(s) course, we had a section where we studied story telling and vernacular expressive arts. During this time we read some, discussed a few, and then were able to also hear actual expressive arts/storytelling experiences that we were then able to use along with the written material as we were becoming more familiar with the entirety of it all. I definitely understand the value that Self and her colleagues are placing on aurality/orality, and specifically the vernacular expressive arts, but to say oratorical performances, debates, orations, and declamations are used to "build students' general skill in public speaking" and not to "encourage specialized inquiry" is a little bit unfair. I feel that, although those are some results of those exercises, it is not all that they are limited too - if that was the case, then why wouldn't we simply send the students to the comm departments to learn and engage in those specific activities?
I really do appreciate the effort that Self is exhibiting with her piece, but because I am a student of rhetoric, and an Instructor who teaches his 101 course with the focus question "what is rhetoric", I find it a little insulting that she would say "as teachers of rhetoric and composition, our responsibility is to teach students effective, rhetorically based strategies for taking advantage of all available means of communicating effectively and productively as literate citizens" (644). I feel confident in stating that the vast majority of rhetoric and composition instructor understand that part of their obligations to their students is to teach them all available means of communication because that is a piece to the actual definition of rhetoric. I even have had a colleague of mine already assign the Public Service Announcement (PSA) assignment that she offers up as an effective way to incorporate aurality/orality into the classroom (643). A lot of the information that I reading seemed like it has already been a part of the English field...which could also be a result of her articles and others in the field.
I did really appreciate the response from Doug Hesse, because we seem to share similar thoughts as it pertains to this discussion of aurality/orality. I, too, feel as if "I'm inclined to make a place for the aurality in my own teaching even as I ponder whether I'm overstepping or sidestepping professional roles that best serve student and social interests" (605).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)