A few things from reading over your blogs

I do look at them once in a while, though as I have said all along, the blogs are mostly for you, and the point of asking you to write there a couple times a week is mostly in the act of writing, I’m hoping that you’re thinking more about the readings and about your research.  Having said that, I did looked at them today in a more concentrated way so that I could give you some thoughts on participation.  Here are a couple highlights:

• Andrea wrote about her research process:  “I found a few articles when I was previous looking, but today I was even more productive in tracking down good sources for my research project.  I learned that combining googlescholar searches with our library databases made it easier to sort through material and find results.”  Google Scholar is indeed awesome, but be sure to also check out the stuff that Keith Stanger shared!  BTW, I think Andrea’s video response to Wesch is awesome too!
• Gloria wrote this about Wikipedia:  “My students do research for their essays and it would be a great learning situation for them to go edit their topics and compare their findings to what is posted on Wikipedia.” and “One comment that was made about the PhD people was that knowledge was taken out of their hands and put into  the hands of the common person that knows maybe more on different subjects then the experts.”
• Angie wrote: “So far this week I’ve found helpful materials for my project in the week 8 readings. I plan on using Cynthia Selfe’s chapters two and three from our textbook for my project and also Johnathon Alexander’s“Media Convergence: Creating Content, Questioning Relationships” as well. His thoughts on media convergence and the Jenkins participatory culture fits in nicely with my remixing in the English classroom. plus, Selfe’s chapter three activities require metacognition which is something I will talk about as necessary for these new digital media texts.”  Totally cool, but keep in mind that while you can use stuff we read in class in your project, those readings can’t count toward your annotated bibliography.
• Carrie wrote:  “I feel as if I’ve been thinking myself in circles when it comes to my research project, so in an effort to gain better perspective, I’m taking a step back to consider why I’m researching this topic in the first place and what I hope to get out of this project by the end of April.  In May, several colleagues and I are presenting on our SyncOWL pilot at the Computers and Writing Conference at Purdue, so one of my goals for this research project is to allow me to do background reading that will provide a theoretical grounding for talking about and developing such a service. I’d like to spend the first part of the session discussing not only what led us to pilot the service at Sweetland, but also how such a service fits in with current trends in electronic writing center work and give a brief overview of what others have written on the topic of synchronous online peer review.”  Sounds like a great session to me, and I’ll be at that conference this year!
• I like a lot of what Ashlee has said this term that bring connections between her work and our readings.  Here she is talking about last week’s readings:  “Having taught in higher education, as well, I realize that these personalities are not unique to student services. They seem to exist across the spectrum in many different jobs and in many different positions. There are exceptions, naturally, but for general classification purposes, my observations work. What’s my point, you may ask? My point is that resistant attitudes to change clog up the system– for they keep me in meetings way past when I should be there– and create negative working atmospheres. This isn’t to say that changes shouldn’t be questioned, but didn’t your mother ever make you try the food before you dismissed it as being disgusting? And, really, only by trying something can you truly work out the kinks. (Hey, broccoli may not taste too great, but broccoli with cheese is pretty good!)”
• Brian wrote about his ongoing research:  “Well, it’s time to start doing one of the most difficult moves in research: narrowing the topic.  The constraint for my project is that it must  “focus on some connection between technology, writing, reading, and/or culture”.  I’ve also set my own constraint in choosing the topic of the connection between aurality and composition.  As for theoretical work in this area of aurality and writing it seems to exist mostly in the area of sound art.  Currently, I’m observing a class in Sound Poetry and EMU and I think the readings for this class will be useful in laying my theoretical frame.”
• Dave wrote, thinking about his research project and the readings for class:  “I’m going to avoid discussing Wikipedia here because, although I don’t deny its importance, I think it distracts from what wikis are really capable of and the implications it has for writing.  Wikis challenge the traditional forms of writing and knowledge.  The collaborative aspect of wikis bring the social nature of writing to the forefront, and challenge who is “qualified” to produce knowlege.  We seem to have moved (or are moving) towards more specialization in all aspects of society.  Traditional disciplines are constantly braching into smaller, more specialized areas.  And, as a result, the amateur is becoming the expert.”
• Renee wrote:  “I wonder what Plato would say about Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a less damaging technological source of writing compared to printed writing. The knowledge provided there, the truth claiming and fact claiming can always change and so Plato’s concerns with propriety and impropriety is constantly acknowledged by its contributors without reference to Plato, of course. But wikipedia and the controversies that surround it remind me a little bit of Plato’s Republic. People are trying to get other people to think the way they do. And the open space for free thinking gets crowded with these controversies and fights between web 2.0 and the academy where people are used to doing their thinking.”  My sense is that Plato wouldn’t be at all crazy about Wikipedia since it has a bit of “negotiated truth” to it.
• And last but not least, I thought I’d post something here that Judy wrote on her blog that is perhaps a fairly common feeling:  “This is supposed to be information about my research paper and how I am coming along on it..and the answer is, “not so very good.””  That’s okay; I guarantee that if you keep working at it, it will get beyond “not very good,” and, more important, it’s part of the process that is so important here.