Analytic Response to Sci-Tech Blog

I focused on writing my article in the style of a citizen journalist. By that I mean I not only made information more understandable to a wider audience, but I also extended the issue presented in the article. And by extended I mean I asked deeper questions on the core of the subject.

Mueller and Oppenheimer research the effects of note-taking on laptops versus note-taking by long hand. Their results showed students who took notes via laptop consistently underperformed. But this was because they were more likely to write notes verbatim. Writing information verbatim allows more information to be recorded, but ultimately this is harmful because external memory storage is not reinforced. I identified the theme of transcription note-taking vs. verbatim note-taking as the main problem behind performance. While it was more likely for students to take notes verbatim on laptops, I questioned whether it was truly impossible for them to transcribe. If they are able to do this, can’t they also take advantage of laptops?

In my blog post I utilized James Porter’s ideas of intertextuality and the discourse community. Intertextuality is writing by incorporating the ideas of others, whether explicitly or implicitly. I aimed to make my paper an intertext by explicitly referring to research papers. The primary paper was Mueller and Oppenheimer’s research on note-taking on laptops versus long hand. Another paper I referenced was Effects of Note-Taking and Study Technique on Recall and Relational Performance. I used the ideas and findings in these papers to explain and reinforce one another and also to further my own writing. On page 37 of his paper James Porter says “the creative writer is the creative borrower.” This statement gives a broader sense of what it means to create an intertext, and helped me in creating my sci-tech blog. It is through the ideas of others that we come to our own ideas.

Another paper I found myself leaning on while writing the sci-tech blog was Killingsworth and Palmer’s Transformations of Scientific Discourse in the News Media. Killingsworth and Palmer primarily focus on how journalists transform scientific information and publications into a more general format for a broader audience to understand. While, I am not a journalist in the news media, I tried to function as a “citizen explanatory journalist”. On page 133 Killingsworth and Palmer say journalists’ “brand of objectivity resembles that of applied science.” I tried to apply this in my own writing. While I do not have hard factual evidence to back up my questions, I pushed issues that might arise from the article I examined. I used other research to help support my reasoning for asking those questions. Killingsworth and Palmer say scientists’ goal in their writing is to present research and some of the results implied. But as a journalist, I used research to raise greater questions about problems in humanity. I wasn’t seeking to present evidence, but rather appeal to a wider audience.

Porter’s Intertextuality and the Discourse Community and Killingsworth and Palmer’s Transformations of Scientific Discourse in the News Media were the two texts that most heavily influenced the construction of my sci-tech blog post. Thinking of my post as an “intertext” helped me incorporate ideas from various research papers in order to formulate new ideas. Writing from the perspective of “applied science” and as a journalist shaped my post to address a certain audience.

Works Cited

Porter, James. “Intertextuality and The Discourse Community.” Rhetoric Review Autumn 1986: 34-47. Print.

Killingsworth, Jimmie. Palmer, Jacqueline. “Transformations of Scientific Discourse in the News Media.” Ecospeak

Mueller, Pam. Oppenheimer, Daniel. “The Pen is Mightier Than the Keyboard: Advantages of Long Hand Over Laptop Note Taking.” Psychological Science April 2014. Print.

Kiewra, Kenneth. Benton, Stephen. Risch, Nancy. Kim, Sung-Il. Christensen, Maribeth. "Effects of Note-Taking Format and Study Technique on Recall and Relational Performance." Contemporary Educational Psychology 1996: 172-187. Print.

Applying Discipline When Taking Notes in an Era of Computers

Note taking is truly an art form in and of itself. It can take years of schooling for a student to find a particular method of note taking that fits them best. There are multiple factors that play into a method: what information one writes down and in what form: abbreviated, whole, or segmented for example. But perhaps the most defining factor in a person’s note taking is whether they choose to copy words verbatim or translate information into their own words. Writing verbatim allows more information to be taken and preserved for later studying. But translating information into one’s own words helps a person to “encode” the information and reinforce their memory of the material. In an era where computers allow students to take more in-class notes, the option to write class material verbatim has been made easier by laptops. But is it necessary to reevaluate how students are taught to take notes, rather than by the medium they use?

A 2014 article by Pam Mueller and Daniel Oppenheimer investigated whether longhand note taking was more effective than note taking via computer. In three different studies conducted for the paper, results consistently showed long hand writing lead to better test scores and overall grades. In their first study Mueller and Oppenheimer found that “participants using laptops are more likely to take lengthier transcription-like notes with greater verbatim overlap with the lecture.” Despite having more information available to study, laptop note-takers still underperformed. Long hand note-takers couldn’t easily copy words verbatim. But by “transcribing” the material, long hand note-takers reinforced external memory storage.

This initial study indicates students are more likely to write verbatim with laptops, gaining more written information but not reinforcing their memory of the material. But, the same practice can be done when long hand writing. I almost always take notes on a spiral journal. If a professor is using a PowerPoint to guide them in their lecture, I often find myself copying notes word for word. It can be a struggle to keep up, though, and I’ll occasionally miss information. If students choose to always write verbatim, the laptop is clearly the way to go. Inversely, doesn’t this mean notes taken via laptop can be transcribed? How might the results differ if a student was told to do this?

In their second study in the article Mueller and Oppenheimer found when note-takers were told to transcribe their notes, there was no significant statistical difference in performance. On page 5 they say, “participants taking more notes performed better…but those whose notes had less verbatim overlap also performed better.” These principles held true for both long hand note-takers and laptop note-takers. Whereas long hand note-takers had an advantage of writing less verbatim notes, laptop note-takers had an advantage of writing more notes.

Mueller and Oppenheimer ultimately conclude that students who take notes long hand tend to show better performance than students who take notes via laptop. But this is primarily because laptop note-takers are more likely to write verbatim, because it is easier to do so. But were a student to use a laptop to transcribe their notes, could they not perform better?

The driving theme behind Mueller and Oppenheimer’s studies seems not to be about the medium, but rather note-taking by transcribing versus writing verbatim. The results of the studies indicate note-taking by computer puts students at a disadvantage because they are more likely to write verbatim. That much is clear.

But what if a student applied enough discipline to truly transcribe notes via laptop? Wouldn’t they record more information and reinforce their external memory storage? Mueller and Oppenheimer seem to say it’s more likely laptop note-takers write verbatim. But is it truly impossible for them to transcribe notes like they would if they were writing long-hand? Maybe the most disciplined students are capable of using laptops to their advantage. If they are aware of the best note-taking methods they could apply them to note-taking through any medium.

What I think this means is that in order for students to take full advantage of the benefits of using a laptop, three things are required: an awareness of what note-taking strategies are best, an awareness of the pitfalls of using a laptop are required, and the discipline to apply this knowledge to their notes.

Besides Mueller and Oppenheimer’s studies, other research reinforces shows there are specific note-taking techniques that better reinforce memory and performance. For example, on page 173 of Effects of Note-Taking Format and Study Technique on Recall and Relational Performance, researchers explain that test performance is best when ideas are organized and well connected in memory. The research found that conventional notes, or notes that merely abbreviated information, neither organized nor reinforced one’s memory of material.

If students had knowledge of research and facts like this, they might excel in all aspects of their note-taking. Though, research shows students who take notes on computers are more likely to write verbatim, if they were taught proper discipline they may be able to take full advantage of the benefits of note-taking on the computer. Understanding how to transcribe one’s notes and how to avoid writing verbatim are the key to doing so.

Link to Analytical Response on Sci-Tech Blog

Works Cited

Mueller, Pam. Oppenheimer, Daniel. “The Pen is Mightier Than the Keyboard: Advantages of Long Hand Over Laptop Note Taking.” Psychological Science April 2014. Print.

Kiewra, Kenneth. Benton, Stephen. Risch, Nancy. Kim, Sung-Il. Christensen, Maribeth. "Effects of Note-Taking Format and Study Technique on Recall and Relational Performance." Contemporary Educational Psychology 1996: 172-187. Print.

Werbach's Radio Revolution as a Citizen's Discourse and Why This Distinction is Significant

Kevin Werbach’s Radio Revolution is a solid example of what can be called a Citizen’s Explanatory Discourse. The goal of the paper is to show the reader how the world around us is changing because of revolutionary technologies, particularly in the field of wireless radio transmission. This is exactly what makes Radio Revolution an explanatory paper as opposed to being strictly a scientific research paper. Werbach writes with the readers in mind, trying to capture their interest by first educating them on the history of radio transmission and then modern technologies. Werbach explains how this information will change the daily lives of human beings and society as a whole.

Killingsworth and Palmer say on page 135 of their article Transformations of Scientific Discourse in the News Media how the concept of “human interest” goes “against the grain of scientific objectivism because it insists it must have social value outside of its own pursuits.” They’re saying that news reporters in particular are motivated to write with human interest. Werbach is not news media, but Radio Revolution is concerned with informing the audience of radio transmittance history and modern technology, much as a news reporter might be. Werbach says in the beginning of his paper on pages 2 and 3 “this paper presents a set of analogies to explain the basic physics of radio, and the radical shift that emerging technologies present.” Already, we can eliminate Radio Revolution as a plainly scientific discourse. Killingsworth’s and Palmer’s observations support, rather, how Werbach writes a Citizen’s discourse devoted to explaining material to an audience. If Werbach were writing a purely scientific paper he would simply present results and data, rather than rely heavily on what they mean for society.

Flickr

But Jean Fahnestock in her paper Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scienctific Facts says scientific papers are “to some extent epideictic and deliberative; they cannot ignore creating a reason for their reporting” (278). So even if Radio Revolution seems to focus on educating the audience, is Werbach’s lesson on the history of radio transmission reasoning for writing a scientific research paper? Does that make his paper less of a Citizen’s discourse? I believe Werbach‘s center focus is informing the audience of the changes new technology will bring. Werbach isn’t presenting newly discovered research information. There are large portions of the article devoted to explaining concepts or transmission technologies, like his section titled “When the Devices Get Smart” (Werbach 14). But they all lead to a greater analogy or historical example to help explain the concepts. In that particular section Werbach explains how transmitters can change signals they send for maximum efficiency, but he later uses an example of a cocktail party to further explain the concept. A scientific research paper would only need to justify writing about transmission technologies, not apply it to everyday life or explain it on a more relatable level to the audience. This is why Radio Revolution, though it involves scientific research and explanation, is an explanatory discourse, rather than a research discourse.

Another factor of Werbach’s paper is the kairos of the subject. Radio Revolution, published in 2004, is presented at a turning point in technology. The relevance of how new radio transmission technologies were changing how society operated on a macro and micro level would have attracted a wide audience. Miller and Shepherd in Blogging as Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog say, “we must see genre in relation to kairos.” So to understand a genre, we must also understand why the discourse is created in the context of present culture. To define Werbach’s Radio Revolution as an explanatory genre, it helps to know that he is writing about a revolution that is happening at the present time. His writing is significant partly because it is at a time when people are most interested in it. Were it a paper dedicated to presenting new information, the timing of it might not be so important.

Why is it so vital that we make such a distinction between the definition of a research paper and a citizen’s explanatory discourse? When a reader absorbs information from their reading, it’s also important to acknowledge the perspective of the writer. Depending on an author’s motives and goals, their use of information, research, and explanation can differ. Killingsworth and Palmer say on page 133 of Transformations that scientists rely less heavily on secondhand information than do journalists. And Fahnestock in Accommodating Science says when reading research papers much of the relevance depends on the inferences of the reader. This information is important to recognize when examining a discourse so one can be certain in what they are reading.

Works Cited

Miller, Carolyn. Shepherd, Dawn. “Blogging as a Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog.” Into the Blogosphere: Rhetoric, Community, and Culture of Weblogs.”  < http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/blogging_as_social_action_a_genre_analysis_of_the_weblog.html>

Fahnestock, Jean. “Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts.” Written Communication July 1986: 275-296. Print.

Killingsworth, Jimmie. Palmer, Jacqueline. “Transformations of Scientific Discourse in the News Media.” Ecospeak

Miller and Shepherd's Genre Analysis of the Blog and What it means for Social Media

In their post “Blogging as Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog” Carolyn Miller and Dawn Shepherd discuss the origins of the weblog and its classification as a genre of writing. At the time this article was written in 2004, the blog had rapidly ascended in status as a platform for personal expression. Miller and Shepherd say this is a sign that the blog is now its very own genre. And the blog’s defining characteristic in their eyes is “the peculiar intersection of the public and private that weblogs seem to invite.” A blog can be addressed to everyone and also no one at the same time. In other words, the blog is a way of sharing one’s inner thoughts with a large and “invisible audience.” This particular characteristic of blogs is what guides Miller and Shepherd in their definition of the blog as a genre.

Miller and Shepherd also discuss where the blog and its name originated. At its core is the word “log”, a form of documentation – something that can apply to a blog. “Web” goes in front of “log” to create “weblog”, which is then shortened to “blog”. Thus, the blog is a method of online logging, open to a wide audience. In a way it’s similar to journals, diaries, and magazine posts. But it differs from journals and diaries because it is open to an audience. And a blog is also much more personal than a magazine or newspaper article. At the time this article was written, the blog was something new and unique. That’s why Miller and Shepherd felt the need to perform a genre analysis of it.

My question is what role did the blog play in developing the social medias we have today? Just like how Miller and Shepherd say the blog evolved from logs, and is a relative of journals, diaries, etc., I believe today’s most popular social media websites are “descendants” of the blog. Andreas Kaplin in his article “Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media” says social media developed because “the growing availability of high-speed Internet access further added to the popularity of the concept” - the “concept” being blogs. Blogs are devoted to expressing drawn out thoughts through extended posts. Social media might be seen as an accelerated version of blogs.

Does Miller and Shepherd’s genre analysis of blogs also apply to social media? Just like blogs, social media is a discourse that has developed its own name and taken off. So what does Miller and Shepherd’s classification of blogs as a genre mean for social media as a genre?

In the article Miller and Shepherd aim to answer the question “what rhetorical work do blogs perform and for whom?” This is a key question in determining the genre type of the blog. Beyond this, they look into kairos and it’s role in the creation of the blog. Understanding the blog’s “cultural context”, the time, place, and reasons for which it originated are central to understanding kairos. Thus, Miller and Shepherd look to the early 90’s when mentioning of the “blog” first came about. According to the article, the never-ending desire for truth was what defined the culture that the blog was fostered in. It was a desire for reality, and a mixture of private and public spheres. The blog became a personal means of doing this. And it was through the blog that writers were able to combine “the immediately real and the genuinely personal.” Miller and Shepherd say the blog is thus defined by the personality of the blogger. The genre is very dependent on the blogger’s perspective, ideas and the way they use their blog.

Since the 90’s when blogs really started developing, it would seem the culture of desire for information has only advanced. Social Media is quicker and briefer form of what the blog might be. It is a representation of a person via the Internet. It’s not just thoughts and ideas being shared with an audience. Social Media allows people to create online identities, communicating in real time and sharing information in real time. The blog, though, still has a place in today’s culture. It is a means for thoroughly communicating and sharing one’s thought.

Works Cited

Miller, Carolyn. Shepherd, Dawn. “Blogging as a Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog.” Into the Blogosphere: Rhetoric, Community, and Culture of Weblogs.”  < http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/blogging_as_social_action_a_genre_analysis_of_the_weblog.html>

Kaplan, Andreas. Haenlein, Michael. “Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media.” <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007681309001232>

The Danger of Good Writing

Jonah Lehrer’s New Yorker blog posts were entertaining, thought provoking, and informative. They’re the type of posts I find myself enjoying most. Like TED Talks or NPR articles, I feel smarter after I read them. Even after discovering Lehrer abused his position as a reporter and technical writer, his articles are enjoyable to read, though they ultimately fall flat.

How is Lehrer able to draw his readers in so quickly and hold their attention? What makes his writing so appealing? I found myself wondering these questions during our past couple of classes. Lehrer is a very skilled writer. He understands how to capture his reader’s attention with statistics and interesting stories.

He also uses intertextuality as a manner of gaining the reader’s trust. Lehrer makes presuppositions and explicit references to outside work. He incorporates the views of other writers and information from studies. This is a key in earning the reader’s trust. James Porter in “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community” emphasizes how “we understand a text only insofar as we understand its precursors” (34). The writer’s awareness of this is important in communicating their work is worthwhile. It shows the writer is joining a larger conversation of high caliber writers. It can also show their thoughts are supported by factual evidence.

But perhaps the most significant thing Lehrer does is use those things to connect with the readers on a personal level. In “Why Smart People Are Stupid” he opens with this question: “A bat and ball cost a dollar and ten cents. The bat costs a dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?” I was one of the people to confidently conclude the ball was 10 cents. I could almost hear Lehrer say “gotcha” once I kept reading. And he did. I was hooked after that. Once he incorporated a few well-known names, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, I trusted him and his thoughts on “Why Smart People Are Stupid”.

This could be saying a couple things and brings me to some other ponderings I’ve had. First, maybe we’re too trustworthy when reading informative technical articles like Lehrer’s; maybe we don’t read deep enough into statistics or research. In class we’ve discussed how Lehrer’s writing often had enthymemes, or logical jumps. But it can be easy for us as readers to accept the enthymemes and continue following Lehrer’s progression to his conclusion. Is it entirely fair for the readers to be blamed for overlooking the logical jumps when a writer’s technique is so smooth and convincing?

Secondly: journalists like Lehrer can easily use their abilities unethically, exploiting readers through misuse of information or even false information if concealed adequately. So maybe there should be a higher ethical standard for reporters.

Lehrer built a reputation as a trustworthy reporter. It was founded on solid credentials. A good portion of his writing must have also been grounded in factual material, or he wouldn’t have gone as far as he did without being found out. A reader shouldn’t have to do a full background and fact check of someone’s writing each time they read an article. Thus, the writer has even more responsibility to act ethically, recognizing they’re ability to sway a reader’s thoughts and biases. The writer not only has responsibility in their use of intextuality to those from whom they gather information and enter rhetorical conversation with, but also to an audience that is drawn in by skilled writing and sometimes misconstrued by it.

Lehrer, Jonah. “Why Smart People Are Stupid.” The New Yorker. 12 June 2012

Porter, James. “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community.” The Rhetoric Review Autumn 1986: 34 - 37