#1 Tip to Get More Done: Finish your most important task first and completely, and do it well. In other words, eat the biggest, ugliest frog first.

Eat that Frog: Tackle difficult projects first.
My most difficult project is too big to eat with just one bite, so I’ve been practicing this principle by doing small things every day to wack it down to size. I’m surprised by what I’m accomplishing. It’s working. The ugliest frog is looking prettier every day! I’m also really amazed at my increased energy level and declining stress levels by taking small actions every day on this ugly frog of a project.

I also love Eat That Frog! because of the title. A few years ago, I did my first experiment with the Law of Attraction. I decided to attract more frogs into my life. You know, it could have been parachutes, pinatas, or parakeetes, but I chose frogs just as an easy experiment to show myself that the Law worked. I set an intention and waited for the Universe to do its work. Soon I started to see frogs everywhere…on t-shirts, on commercials, and once while shopping with my Mom in a department store, I saw an entire row of frog socks! Now, whenever I see a frog, I am reminded that Divine order is at work in my life.

Since reading Tracy’s book, I am also reminded that my “frogs” (difficult projects) may be ugly, but the toughest challenges are also part of Divine order. Frogs can be opportunities to learn and grow. They teach us what we need to learn on our path. Of course, it’s more difficult to remember this fact when in the midst of things.

It’s also interesting to me that none of my most difficult projects are found at work. Instead, they are all projects or goals that I’ve set for myself personally. (More evidence that I’m harder on myself than others….but, that’s a topic for another post!)

Now, I’m not exactly wishing for more ugly frogs, and I’m still working on not letting my frog of a drive get to me, but I’m getting more done while less stressed about all I still want to accomplish.

Before reading this text, I was naively holding out hope that W might believe that what he was doing was best for all Americans, even if it often privileged the wealthy at the expense of the lower and middle classes. Now, I have no further illusions. The way that Gore portrays this administration leaves little room for me to accord such thought.

In describing the problem, Gore holds little back. His argument is that this administration believes they are entitled to the economic gains they have engineered, wrestle even more executive power, and that we have done too little to stop it because the majority of us spend 3/4 of our free time watching TV and not participating in any discussion of ideas, and as such the idea of engaging with with or questioning any of the decisions that are made for us becomes very difficult and highly unlikely. Add to the public’s passivity, an unceasing rhetoric of fear propagated by the current administration, and it’s likely that many people don’t know what to do to make a difference.

Prior to reading, I would have expected Gore to quote prior presidents such as Jefferson and Lincoln. However, Gore quotes from a diverse number of sources on the order of Habermas, Lawrence Grossman, Lippmann, Neil Postman, Edmund Burke, Winston Churchill, George Orwell, and Martin Luther King Jr, among others in the 273 citations. His manages an intellectual and informative tone, without sounding preachy, petty or partisan. Early on he states, “It is too easy–and too partisan–to simply place the blame on the policies of President George W. Bush. We are all responsible for the decisions our country makes” (2). He doesn’t let us or himself off the hook. He does discuss how we are being manipulated by TV programming, so-called news, as well as the 30-second political ad. I found his discussions on brain activity and psychology fascinating, but some people might get bored by these discussions. Nevertheless, Gore argues that we must understand how and why the problem came about if we are to have a chance at solving it.

In the introduction, Gore promises to describe and assess the damage, and he does a good job of it in the first eight chapters. He also promises that his last chapter will be a roadmap for change–a strategy outlining how reason can be restored to democracy. Unfortunately, this last chapter is all too short in my opinion. At just 25 pages, he has little room to layout a detailed strategy. Instead, he offers examples of how those of us who are connected to the internets might be a force for change, including more participatory TV such as the network he helped found, Current TV.

There were only a few times when I cringed at the way he expressed his ideas. He discusses extensively how the 24 hour cycle presents us with repeated news about unimportant and uncritical topics. He conveys that the TV news serves its corporate interests at the expense of critical, investigative journalism and that journalists are unable to do their jobs. However, in support of this point he quotes Dan Rather’s statement about TV being “dumbed down and tarted up” (17). I think Rather’s comment has more to do with his personal feelings of being replaced by Couric. According to Rather’s page at Wikipedia, the entire comment was: “the mistake was to try to bring the ‘Today’ show ethos to the ‘Evening News,’ and to dumb it down, tart it up in hopes of attracting a younger audience.” I find the ‘tart it up’ comment offensive. And, Gore is trying to appeal to a younger, more connected audience with Current TV, so the use of this particular quote is problematic for me.

The second discordant moment I had while reading was his use of the word simple and simplicity. In chapter two in his discussion of how Bush uses faith to divide issues into absolute wrongs and rights, Gore writes,

Simplicity is always more appealing than complexity, and faith is always more comforting than doubt. Both religious faith and uncomplicated explanations fo the world are even more highly valued at a time of great fear. Moreover, during times of great uncertainty and public anxiety, any leader who combines simplistic policies with claims of divine guidance is more likely to escape difficult questions based on glaring logical flaws in his arguments.(55)

This paragraph is all well and good. However, a few pages later, Gore writes,

When you boil down precisely what went wrong with the Bush Iraq policy, it’s fairly simple. He waged the politics of blind faith. He used a counterfeit combination of misdirected vengeance and misguided dogma to dominate the national discussion, bypass reason, silence dissent, and intimidate those who questioned his logic both inside and outside the administration. (60).

His word choice here is problematic. As an editor, I would have suggested a different word than ‘simple’ in this paragraph. How about, ‘it’s fairly straightforward.’ Then I wouldn’t have a problem following a critique of simplicity in one area with a concise statement of the problem in another that followed so soon thereafter. However, in neither area, do I find a problem with the larger argument at hand.

Overall, I’m glad I read the text. If I was going to review or debate many of the issues he discusses, I could use his footnotes as a starting place to extend my reading. I just wanted two more chapters at the end. I want more that I can do to help because sometimes it does feel like there is little I can do to change or do to make a difference.

On one of the back pages of the book, the publisher advertises their online talk radio: Hay House Radio.

Today is day #330 of the year. Affirmation #330 is: “I constantly have new insights. My future is glorious.” May you all have new insights and glorious futures!

There is not an RSS option, but you can also get a daily affirmation, if you visit Hay’s website.

There was an op-ed in the Chronicle recently about students and IM. Students said email was so last year and that they hardly ever answer email. I’ll have to look that article up. I know I made a copy of it. If students have moved on to other forms of electronic communication, do we begin where they are, or do we drag them over to where we are — wherever that is, whether that is in email or in video? I could be wrong, but I suspect that students are moving to using email as a storage or transfer tool than using it to communicate and network with other students. I think they use IM, SMS, and cell phones much more. I could be wrong. I’ll have to do more research to find out.

I guess if I want my first chapter of my thesis to be about the “what” of digital literacies, I guess it might help to think about from whose perspective.

WAC hasn’t talked so much about electronic communication. There are just a few texts:

Reiss, Donna, Dickie Selfe and Art Young, eds. Electronic Communication Across the Curriculum. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1998.

McLeod, Susan H., Eric Miraglia, Margot Soven, and Christopher Thaiss, eds. WAC for the New Millennium: Strategies for Continuing Writing-Across-the-Curriculum Programs. Urbana, Illinois: NCTE, 2001.

Searching The WAC Clearinghouse Bibliography, I found a few more articles:

Palmquist, Mike, et al.. “Network support for writing across the curriculum: Developing an online writing center.” Computers and Composition 12.3 (1995): 335-353.

Recent advances in computer and computer-network technologies make it possible to consider an alternative to the indirect, top-down pedagogy used in most writing-across-the-curriculum (WAC) programs (e.g., a pedagogy that views faculty as the primary audience for WAC training). Drawing on the results of a 4-year effort to establish a campus-wide, computer-supported writing environment, we suggest that computer networks and specifically designed instructional software (e.g., multimedia instructional materials and interactive writing exercises) can provide the basis for a network-supported writing-center-based WAC program. Our discussion focuses on development of network communication tools and hypermedia courseware to support WAC. (Added by Kate Kiefer on October 17, 2002 | Last Updated on October 29, 2002)

Ok, so now we’re talking. According to this abstract, Palmquist advocates ‘multimedia instructional materials and interactive writing exercises;’ however, what if students were the ones creating the multimedia materials? What if WAC advocated students’ acquisition of digital literacies? Ok, so I think I want to advocate CAC because it’s not like I want to say do away with writing on paper or that electronic writing is the only way to go. I do want to consider what happens when WAC becomes CAC and starts to emphasize and encourage not just writing, but multimodal learning and communication.

Sherman, Lawrence W.. “Postmodern Constructivist Pedagogy for Teaching and Learning Cooperatively on the Web.” CyberPsychology & Behavior 3.1 (Feb2000): 51-58.

Sherman situates WAC in a broader movement towards “Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environments.” He calls for all disciplines, particularly his own, Psychology, to adopt these online environments. He gives examples of these, including Blackboard, and one he developed for his own department. Sherman argues from a Postmodern position, saying that now more than ever students are aware of difference in their lives and in the university, and tend to distrust information from the teacher presented as fact. If it is presented as part of a forum, in which they can see ideas and conflict and join the debate, the knowledge they take away will seem “real” to them. (Added by Ben Miller on March 8, 2005 | Last Updated on March 8, 2005)

I agree with the last part about involving students in discussions in the field; however, I doubt Blackboard is the answer. D. and I were talking yesterday and I said that there were people on campus who will support instructors’ use of tools like Blackboard and WebCT; however, that’s not writing. And, she said something along the lines of…yes, but who is doing work to support different kinds of writing? Then, we wondered if there are any proffessors who are integrating technology and writing into their courses. To refine that a little more now, are there any instructors who are integrating technology into their courses other than as a means of course management, and primarily as a writing/designing/recording/filming/imaging to learn or to communicate activity?

Yes, that is what I want to find out. I know there are people in the field of Computers and Writing who are doing such things, but are any of them doing so as part of a WAC, CAC, or ECAC program?

Kiefer, Kate. “Integrating Writing Into Any Course: Starting Points.” Academic.Writing (2000). .

After teachers articulate their goals for incorporating writing into courses, working backwards from the goals to specific assignments can be relatively straightforward. This article provides a process for teachers to determine goals and then devise writing assignments to fit those goals. (Added by Kate Kiefer on October 15, 2002 | Last Updated on October 29, 2002)

Reading this abstract reminds me there was a recent article on Kairos “Why Teach Digital Writing” that I need to go back and read again.

Ok, so I want to talk about the “what” and the “why” of the question, not necessarily the “how” because that will be a local question.

What are digital literacies?
Why would WAC/CAC/ECAC want to encourage?
What can WAC learn from students’ use of digital technologies?

The how question that really widen things up and that I am still attached to is: How can WAC directors reach unaffected audiences? For example, if WAC integrated multimodal/new media compositions into their WAC workshops and seminars, I suspect that doing so might increase both their effectiveness and affectiveness. Can I ask it a different way? What are students learning and communicating by the ways they are using “new media?” Are they connecting these activities to their own and others’ lived experiences?

Ok, that is enough for now. Thoughts on this mess anyone?

one-sentence summary: Odell argues that WAC faculty must help their colleagues understand students’ ways of knowing and that writing and content should not be evaluated separately.

86: A formalist evaluation of students writing would lead to comments such as “simple, clear, and authoritative,” whereas; a non-formalist approach could lead to comments such as: “writes well…but they write about nothing.”

87: defines ways of knowing as “thinking strategies that can be made conscious and can influence a writer’s (or a reader’s) reflection on the subject matter at hand.”

88: meaning making as “deliberate,” “spontaneous,” and/or “context specific.” In this article he argues for context specific and deliberative and doesn’t address spontaneous much. However, his mention of spontaneous ways of knowing made me think back to last semester re: Masumi and affect…the affect is spontaneous before the mind categorizes and judges it.

89: need to do (and help others do) rhetorical analysis in order to make better evaluations

89: need to “give up facile generalizations about what constitutes ‘good’ writing’.”

90: need to “maintain balanced perspective” regarding different ways of knowing and others’ opinions on ways of knowing.

91: two WOK he mentions here are: noting similarities and identifying gaps.

91: faulty WOK are empty phrases and value judgements, such as: “it is interesting,” “it is amazing,” and “this is unfortunate…man must learn…”

96: while discussion engineering texts, he mentions two other ways of knowing: “explaining decisions,” and “providing a technical rationale.”

97: WAC specialists need to help others understand or overcome their objections to appreciating and evaluating students’ ways of knowing.

Top 5: In the article, he refers to Bazerman’s article in this same text on rhetorical analysis, as well as Miller and Selzer, but I’m working from a photocopy without a Works Cited so I can’t identify those texts right now.

Here are some of the titles that caught my eye:

Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror
Web-Based Learning : Design, Implementation, and Evaluation
Digital Youth: Emerging Literacies on the World Wide Web
Putting Students First: How to Develop Students Purposefully
Palgrave Advances in William Blake Studies (I’m taking a 19th Century Brit Lit class this semester and according to the info at Amazon this volume covers (among other things) Blake and Gender Studies and has a chronology and bibliography, all of which might be helpful at some point.)

Now…if I only had more time!

From there, I clicked on a random commenter and found: Jason Santa Maria’s site and his post On the Subject of Design. Check out the books he recommends on design. This post would be of interest to visual rhetoricians.

One of the books Jason recommends is: Visual Literacy: A Conceptual Approach to Graphic Problem Solving by Judith Wilde, Richard Wilde. Also, he mentions: The Elements of Color by Johannes Itten.

Finally, one of the other books he recommended that is a little bit differrent than the others: A Whack on the Side of the Head by Roger von Oech. After checking it out on Amazon, I’m thinking about ordering the deck of cards based on the book: Creative Whack Pack for some out-of-the-box thinking.

Good stuff.