Swales' Three-Move Model for Introductions (4/13/2010)

Swales’ Three-Move Model for Introductions

(Digital Literacy and Visual Impairments)

Bradford McKeon

Move 1: Establishing a Territory

With each passing day it seems like technological innovation is growing. Our use of the computer ranges from submitting homework to doing out own taxes. In a world where people can read everything from a screen, how does a blind person survive? It is important to make sure that those who cannot use regular everyday technology are accounted for.

Move 2: Establishing a Niche:

Many people assume that digital literacy presents a barrier for the blind. I wanted to know how the blind might adjust to a visual technological world. Instead of focusing on creating and improving helpful technologies, people often just say that there is a road block for the blind. I am focusing on the helpful technologies for the blind that make literacy easier, as well as adjusting to the technological age we live in.

Move 3: Occupying the Niche:

I set out to find research on the different technologies that are in place to assist the blind, including screen magnifiers and text to speech technologies. I wanted to learn about what was already out there, and how it can be improved. Overall I found many different technologies that are in place to assist the visually impaired. I would like to help show that digital literacy can be a helpful thing for the blind too. I have summarized different findings of several types of technologies for the visually impaired. I will present them, as well as any counter-claims and room for improvements in the different technologies.

Written Quiz On Chapters 7/8 Definition Vs. Fact

I started my research with a simple question. I just wanted to know how the blind adapt to our ever changing technological world. According to Everything’s an Argument by Andrea Lunsford, “Factual arguments tend to be driven by perceptions and evidence. A writer first notes something new or different or mistaken and wants to draw attention to it.” When I started I considered my topic an argument of fact. I noticed something that I took interest to and that is how I developed my subject.

I was hoping to find out what technologies were out there for the blind, and how they were accommodated in a society where almost everything can be done from the computer. According to Lunsford one of the first steps in identifying a factual argument is to identify the issue and then research the hypothesis. My hypothesis was that digital literacy can actually be a helpful thing for the blind. It was at this point however, that I ran into some trouble defining my hypothesis. What would a researcher consider to be “helpful?” What would a visually impaired person consider to be “helpful?” This is where my argument became more based on definition.

I figured a good place to start was to see what the researchers and experts were saying about the topic. According to Anne Morris and Helena Brading in their article E-literacy and the grey digital divide: a review with recommendations, “Visual impairment, strokes and Parkinson’s disease, for example, can all be barriers to using technology.” While this is true, and many researchers would agree, I wanted to know what kind of technologies were out there that were designed to assist the blind. This is more of an argument of definition, arguably what is helpful and what is not helpful. I found a lot of research that listed pages of different tools designed to help the visually impaired use computers. For example Hasselbring and Glaser stated in their article Use of Computer Technology to Help Students with Special Needs, “Fewer individuals recognize the great number of benefits that computer-based technologies may afford children with disabilities.” They go on to list many different “helpful” technologies that all make using the computer easier for the blind such as Descriptive Video Services that give auditory descriptions of visual words on a screen.

As I start to piece together all of my research, it is obvious to me that I am formulating an argument of both fact and definition. While I can argue just how accurate and encompassing a statistic may be, I can also argue what different researchers consider to be “helpful.” In Multiliteracies for a Digital Age Selber talks about “Functional Literacy.” I want to know if there is anything out there that can help the blind achieve functional literacy in terms of a computer, and being able to perform everyday tasks. With all of this in mind, I am piecing together my argument making sure that I have solid facts and clearly defined terms, because without that research would not be credible.

Reflection of Research Thus Far (4/6/2010)

After completing all of my research thus far, I can conclusively prove one thing. Researchers and writers are completely divided on my issue of how digital technology impacts the visually impaired. My specific question is basically to find out if technology can actually be a good thing for the blind and literacy. The conversation has been very interesting so far. Many researchers write pages and pages of data and examples that prove that digital literacy is a good thing for the visually impaired. For example, Ted Hasselbring and Candyce Williams Glaser (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1602691?seq=14) present an entire table filled with many different technologies that help the blind learn like everyone else with computers. Among the list are Computer Screen Magnifiers and Descriptive Video Services. Other researchers like Anne Morris and Helena Brading argue that, "Visual impairment, strokes and Parkinson’s disease, for example, can all be barriers to using technology" (http://jil.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/RA-V1-I3-2007-2/30).

I have not had any trouble finding research to answer my question, and support my theory, that technology can actually help the blind. However, there are a few problems with the research I have found. One problem is that many times the researcher does not take a definitive stand for either side of the issue. For example a researcher will provide proof that technology creates a roadblock for the blind, but in a later paragraph will list all of the helpful technologies that assist the blind. I feel this is a weak stance for a writer to take, but as long as the information is credible I can use it for my research. Another problem is the age of the research. Technology is changing every single day, and it is difficult for research to keep up. Research quoted from the 1980's will be outdated for the conversation in 2010. This means that as a researcher myself I have to watch to see when something was published, and judge its validity from that.

Overall the research process is going well and there is an abundance of information. Even thought I have to judge my information carefully, it is very easy to find the necessary information I need. My topic is coming along nicely, and my research question is becoming more and more defined with each new research article I find.

Core 3 Rough Draft

Bradford McKeon

ENC 1102

Core 3 Rough Draft

As I began to wonder how the blind survived in today’s technological age, I learned more and more that technology can actually be a positive thing for the visually impaired in terms of digital literacy. After extensive searching I have decided to use the help of specific researchers to prove my point. Those qualified researchers that have published works in a journal or a book will help me to illustrate my argument that digital literacy can actually be helpful for the blind.

I judged my sources on certain criteria that I wanted each one to meet. I chose to use researchers who have a credible background, meaning they have a degree in a relating field or work for an accredited university or company. I was careful to make sure that each source pertained to my topic of the visually impaired and digital literacy. I did not want to pick a source that just made a small reference to my topic once within the article. I tried to locate journal articles and books as well as “.gov” and “.edu” websites.

Hasselbring, Ted and Candyce Williams Glaser. “Use of Computer Technology to Help Students

with Special Needs.” The Future of Children 10.2 (2000): 102-122. Web. 18 Mar. 2010.

In this journal article the authors Ted Hasselbring and Candyce Williams Glaser do a technological review of the different technologies available for the visually impared. Hasselbring is the Bryan Professor of Special Education Technology at the University of Kentucky; and Glaser is a research associate at the Learning Technology Center. They reviewed technologies such as “Screen Readers” which translate text on the screen, to written speech and found them to be very beneficial to the students learning. While they did not actually study a blind person using the equipment, they instead reviewed how the technologies worked, and would help in the classroom. They stated in their article, “For example, descriptive video services (DVS), which provide narrative verbal descriptions of visual elements, have proven useful in helping students who are blind or have low vision to use educational programs in regular classrooms.” This technological review will help me with my argument that technology can actually help the visually impaired with literacy, and that it is not true to say that digital literacy presents major barriers for the blind.

Blog to Follow (2/18/2010)

http://www.corvetteblog.com/

Bradford McKeon Core 1 Paper (2/11/2010)

Bradford McKeon

Mrs. Jane Moody

ENC 1102

11 Feb. 2010

My Digital Literacy: Past, Present and Future

Growing up my parents had a favorite phrase, “We didn’t have computers, and we grew up just fine.” As I sat there waiting for my dial-up connection to load, I would mock them facing the bulky monitor. Fast forward ten years, it seems like everyone is on the computer. The laptop that my parents never had, they now cannot live without. Over my few years in elementary, middle, and high school I learned how to proficiently read and write, as well as use computers. It seems that everyone has a different definition of the term “digital literacy.” Most would agree however, that the basic foundation of digital literacy is tying skills like reading and writing into technology. This allows people to grow successfully in the 21^st century. Today, I would consider myself digitally literate enough to fit into what Selber calls, “Functional Literacy” (23). This term includes being able to use the computer for everyday means as a machine that performs an operation. The first step in determining where I want to be on the technology wave crashing over our society is to define what I can already do. From there, it is easier to form a path to where I hope to go with technology. It is obvious that the computer has become an important part of society today, and while I feel that some parts of my life are too computer dependent it is almost unavoidable in today’s world.

The computer is definitely a big part of my daily routine. The first thing I do in the morning is check “Facebook.com.” It would probably be very difficult for me to go through a day without the computer. I am constantly using Microsoft Word for schoolwork and I know my way around Windows Vista like the back of my hand. However, there are some aspects of my life that I feel are too dependent on the computer. I get all of my news and research from the Internet. It is very rare that I venture out to a library to rent a book. I also depend on the computer as a communication tool, instead of using the phone or meeting up in person.

This is not to say that the computer is all bad. By growing up with computers, I have been trained to be a critical thinker. I grew up in my family as the person who always had to fix the computer when it stopped working. Computers have also made me a better student due to the fact I can type very quickly, and complete projects neatly. Over the years I found that my spelling improved from using “spell check” so many times. This is really where my use of the computer ties into my digital literacy. It was about the same time that I started to write on paper, that I became familiar with the computer. For my generation this is a pretty common occurrence. Charles Jackson from one of the case studies in “The Future of Literacy” is a good example of this. According to his case study, “Charles learned to read and write online about the same time he learned to read and write in print” (Selfe 198).Today however, I do most of my reading from a computer screen. As I entered high school, it was about the time that teachers seemed a little more ambitious on combining literacy and technology together. Therefore, I have been taught both ways to read and communicate. This is beneficial because according to Selber we are entering a time where, “The most rewarding jobs require multiple literacies” (4).

The next question I had to consider is where I see myself going with technology in the future. As an engineering major, the computer will be huge component part of my career. According to Larry Richards from the University of Virginia, “The kinds of careers previous generations have enjoyed will be largely unavailable in the future. Engineering graduates will have to be entrepreneurial, creative, and aware of the world economic and business realities” (1). This is where the computer has really altered the field of engineering. Years ago, engineers made design plans by hand. Today they use software like AutoCad which is a program I am currently learning. Richards goes on to say, “And of course, employers expect students to be fluent in the latest CAD and FEA software” (2). I am one of the lucky ones who has a strong foundation in digital literacy. This will undoubtedly help me in my future career. As an engineer it is not enough to be just “Functionally Literate.” I have to learn to master the programs I will be expected to use. Even when I recently looked for a part-time job, one of the first questions I was asked was about my computer skills. Anyone can click the Internet icon on the screen to begin surfing the web; but being digitally literate involves more than that. “Using the same skills used for centuries—analysis, synthesis, and evaluation—we must look at digital literacy as another realm within which to apply elements of critical thinking” (Jones-Kavalier).

The last piece of the puzzle is for me to decide how I will get to my goal of digital literacy. My engineering classes are a great place to start. The focus of these classes is not only learning about the field of engineering, but to also becoming familiar with the programs commonly used in the workplace. So far I have taken Introduction to Engineering and have been exposed to design programs like SolidWorks. Many of my future classes will be integrated with technology such as Thermodynamics and Structural Analysis. My short-term goal is to get an internship that will help me learn practical uses of these programs out in the field. It is easy to follow along with a textbook tutorial of a program, but the real challenge is when I have to use the program for more than just a set of pre-determined steps. I hope one day I am not only able to use these programs, but master them.

Overall, I would be confident in saying that I am on my way to becoming more digitally literate each day. I have defined where I am and where I want to go. With an attainable set of goals I will hopefully be able to one day achieve more than just “Functional Literacy.” Heading into the future one thing that is for certain is that no child born in this generation will ever again have to hear their parents say, “We didn’t have computers, and we grew up just fine.”

Works Cited

Jones-Kavalier, Barbara and Suzanne Flannigan. “Connecting the Digital Dots: Literacy of the 21st Century.” Educause Quarterly. Web. 3 Feb. 2010.

Richards, Larry. “Work In Progress: Changing Engineering Education:

Stimulating Innovation and Overcoming Resistance.” 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. San Diego, CA: 2006. Print.

Selber, Stuart. Multiliteracies for a Digital Age. Carbondale: Southern Illinios University Press, 2004. Print.

Selfe, Cynthia and Gail Hawisher. Literate Lives in the Information Age. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, 2004. Print.

Audience Awareness 02/04/2010 Assignment

Bradford McKeon

ENC 1102

Audience Awareness Article Assignment

02/04/2010

“Understanding a Writer’s Awareness of Audience”

Carol Berkenkotter

The purpose of Carol Berkenkotter’s research and paper, was to see if writers with more training and experience think about their audience more than writers who do not have this training in rhetorical theory. After researching ten subjects Berkenkotter started to find that it depended on the individual writer as to how they addressed their audience. For example, some writers moved towards a persuasive essay topic, while others did informative or personal narrative. Their topic was to write and think about what they would say to a group of high school students about their careers. Based on how the writer thought the audience would react, they came up with their writing. The outcome was that those who tried to persuade their audience stayed much more focused on the topic. The final conclusion was that a writer’s discipline affects their planning of content when addressing an audience, not necessarily how they view the audience.