ADHD

Hypertext is cool, I dig it. So just for fun, I have randomly hypertexted things, sort of like an easy Easter egg hunt. Some links are relevant, some are not. You might get a chocolate, or you might get a dead baby bird (metaphorically speaking). I liked the hypertext article, except I found myself virtually flipping the pages and looking at the pictures. At first, the non-linear structure threw me off, and I was apprehensive about clicking hypertext and not being able to get back to the main page, that I would miss something or get out of sequence and not understand. I got the basic gist and really connected with the "virtue of irregularity" idea. Regularity is good for car maintenance, periods, and paychecks, but what good is it in the real world aside from making everyone fit their worlds into well-defined little boxes? I've always been a fan of trying something different, even if it's not entirely well thought out (e.g. my recent hair mangling). It's interesting to me to think about models or processes of thought--I had to draw my own model of how information is learned for Ed Psych, and it was different to think of thought processes in a spatial way. Which brings me to the next article:

Sounds to me like Catherine Adams has had to sit through one too many staff meetings delivered via The Devil, aka PowerPoint. From this point on, I will not capitalize it.

I did not know that powerpoint was responsible for the Challenger blowup (and here text fails me because there is a definite sarcastic note in my voice), only for mindlessly boring class lectures and meetings, the worst of which not only featured powerpoint in all its default glory, but also supply you with hard copies of the slides ahead of time. You know, in case you get lost or something. I agree with the basic argument against powerpoint, but really, I think the bigger problem is that it's used for the most driest of material. Boring facts and figures, bulleted lists and charts and pie graphs, maybe a quote with a relevant and/or pleasant picture....zzzz.....and this is seriously how teachers are taught and sometimes end up teaching. I also see this as a response to the way teachers and students have been squelched by standardized testing and micromanaging. Make it nice and "techy" and organized, that must be a sign of real education going on. Just use the default setting, every child can learn and is essentially the same anyway (again, text does not convey tone or inflection very well).

I have used powerpoint in class, not to present information, but as an individual assignment over a story (usually a narrative) that essentially is like this: create five slides, one on each story element--character, setting, plot, theme, resolution. Add relevant pictures or artwork. Pretty simple. This exercise got kids thinking about presentation, font size and style, picture selection, what to write and how to write it. It distinguished these abstract ideas and forced them to come out from between the lines on the pages where they hide all intermixed, and be on display on a 4:3 rectangle, ready to be analyzed. And like it or not, we're probably all up into powerpoint because it's a rectangular picture box with not too many words on it at once and sometimes with fun sounds, and we like that kind of thing.

Being in a long distance relationship, I am thankful for text messaging and IMing as it allow frequent (sometimes over-frequent) communication with my special man friend. I've said a few times that text can't connote tone and inflection, but when you text/IM as much as we do, it kinda does. One thing I've always appreciated about Mark (and he about me) is that we don't do the "LOL,"using "u" for "you" and "2" for "two" type of texting--we are grammarian elitists (evidenced by our watch-doggedness on each other's grammar). Lewis and Fabos reported similar findings in their study. However, this is not always easy--a few tasty fights have cropped up from textual misunderstandings. Scorpios have very sharp humors. IMing is also frequently used in the making of plans that concern meeting in establishments of food and drink. Plans change quickly, and you are painfully aware of that when you have one friend without a cell phone. Next thing you know she's calling you from restaurants you're not at and phone booths. I'm so good at texting I can do it while I drive, but I really try not to. Sometimes I'd rather text someone, and thereby bypass the customary rules of the phone call: greeting, small talk, purpose of call, resolution/plans made, small talk, ending. I can't do anything else while I'm on the phone, not even listen to music, I just can't concentrate. I'd rather say: "Trudy's, 8pm" and be done with it. Texting is also good for speeding up those faculty meetings facilitated by powerpoint.

things i've done online
- chat with friends
- check work schedule
- used SubFinder
- apply for job online
- email parents, college roommate, friends, professors, coworker, sister, job offer guy
- looked over Mark's homework
- shared my homework online with Mark
- worked on a paper
- checked myspace
- found articles from online library
- read/printed out assigned readings
- researched and purchased airline tickets
- wrote a blog entry
- researched lesson plans
- looked at other people's blogs and made comments
- found video clips pertaining to graffiti
- started final project using Windows Movie Maker
- looked into South Beach diet online
- paid my credit card bills
- ordered pizza
- ordered a new Netflix movie
- checked my bank balance

Thinking outside the idiot box

Has our collective sense of humor gotten more sophisticated in the last few decades? I present to you: Small Wonder vs. Arrested Development:




I have been saying for a while now that daytime television sucks the soul out of people. It's a chicken and egg type question--does being depressed and out of work make horrible shows such as Springer, Maury Povich, Keith Ablow, Cristina's Court, Judge Alex, Divorce Court, etc seem worse, or do horrible shows cause people to be depressed and out of work? It's a shame spiral, really, I might have to just move out or get extended cable or something if I continue to stay at home during the day when I don't have class or work. Or perhaps attending Everest Institute to become a medical assistant in seven short months is the answer. At least then I'd get to wear scrubs, that seems to be a selling point of their commercials. I like to bitch about TV, the messages sent discretely and overtly, the predictability of plot lines, the representation of life. TV is white noise for me, something to have on while doing homework, although I find situational and cartoon comedies comforting. I like Cops and Sex in the City (that's two shows). I dearly miss having Comedy Central and think that shows like the Colbert Report and the Daily Show have a lot of potential to educate the masses. Not MTV. I think Sesame Street is an amazing program still. But I digress.

I think we are overlooking an important resource in assuming that television and other pop culture items have little or no educational value. We are going against the grain. Kids want to talk about movies they've seen, songs they like, shows they watch, but we rarely incorporate common themes or ideas from their natural interest. Granted, TV for the most part sucks. I dig Steven Johnson and his article for suggesting that TV programs such as 24 (which I can't watch since I haven't seen the first season) are cognitively beneficial. His explanation of the Sleeper Curve (the most debased forms of mass diversion--video games and violent television dramas and juvenile sitcoms--turn out to be nutritional after all) supports my idea that most of what you think you know is probably wrong. If nothing else, Johnson's prescription to just watch the box for a few hours and think about it will inspire great enthusiasm in students who are increasingly difficult to engaged in classrooms and textbooks. Also, as much as we hate to admit it, television and movies are an extremely influential part of pop culture, our sources of fashion, slang, brand name consciousness, etc.

I really don't dig on reality TV, but Johnson claims the true test of the Sleeper Curve is the junk improving as well as mediocre/good programming. I loathe Fear Factor. I love Being Bobby Brown. It's a crap shoot. In addition to being a vehicle for extensive public humiliation, reality television provides water-cooler chat and camaraderie. Most seem to rely on plying contestants with alcohol or an overabundance of dramatic camera work. I agree with Johnson that being aware of the junk and the non-junk is key if you're going to try to make a case for educational television. I have used some advertising/media literacy/awareness lessons before, both in AISD and in Gardner Betts with a lot of success, this link is probably best for high school, this one's good for littler ones.

Making the case for a hip-hop education is a challenge. Today's hip hop as heard on radio don't often strike a cord with me, maybe because I'm white or too old, whatever. But I do know that the kids, they love the music, and we overlook this in the classroom the same way we do other non-traditional media. H2ED seems like a good organization with a strong support base of teachers, parents, community, etc. Also, it reaches further into the culture than does the traditional white-based public school curriculum. Hip hop music as I've seen it would require a certain amount of discernment, as there are a lot of controversial messages sent in many hip hop videos and songs.

Shihan, poetry slam:

OWN3D

I have a few thoughts on ownership of ideas, copyright law, Marxist, and various other whatnot. Until I can get them all in order, here's a tasty website about plagiarists.

The idea of originality has always been important to me, and is becoming more important as time goes on, I become older, and realize that the old line "nothing new under the sun" is pretty true. Incidentally, I had forgotten that was a Bible verse--if you're interested in the rest of the quote, click on the link to your left.

Jack Valenti reminds me of Bush in a way. He takes a right-seeming, right-sounding idea that ignorant masses wouldn't think twice about, and parlays it into a big pile of bullshit nonsense to serve his own (evil) purposes. Creative property owners do not have the same rights as other property owners, because creativity is different. I looked up copyright laws, it's a bunch of bureaucratic messiness you need an MBA to decipher. Is it true that there are no novel ideas, no originality? Is everything written and filmed and recorded basically a rearranged jigsaw puzzle of recycled ideas? Maybe. Working at a movie theater, I can testify that there is a serious lack of originality within the film industry, as I see the same old cliches and jokes in virtually every romantic comedy. Listen to your local hip-hop station, I'll give you a dollar if you can tell me the difference between the songs. Same old shit, different day. Here's a question for you--who's taking ownership for the STUPID ideas? Watch dis, it'll blow your mind:


I was glad for Lessig's description of why we can't all do whatever we want to do, I've always known that's true, but the actual constraints of the law, norms, architecture, and the market put it into imaginable frames. Too bad the norms constraint is shrinking.