I plan on using multimodal composition to further my reader's understanding of the research I have done. Sometimes seeing things make more of a lasting effect than just reading something. I will be using these rather than just pictures because they a more interactive and will hopefully draw the reader further into the my paper. By using tables and video, I will be able to show that the research I have done is actually factual and that I am a reliable source.
I think that the great thing about multimodal evidence is that it adds to a paper in a way that words can't. By adding video, I exoect the reader to be more interested in what I am speaking about and I expect it to help keep their attention. Although, the multimodal evidence and the research I have done go hand in hand in my paper, my evidence hasn't influenced my research. My research influenced what evidence I chose. I went with videos and graphs so the interactive experience would keep the readers attention while reading a paper about science and the medical field, which can be a little dry.
I don't feel that any feedback is necessary for my writing process right now.
In my opinion, this is not even a valuable argument to further discuss. If had even had the ability to disagree with the terms and services when i first started, its not like i could say no. If i want to go to college here and have the ability to see important messages/emails from instructors and access my grades, then i need to have d2l no matter what. The account is created for us when we enroll here at gsu so the power is out of our hands. That being said i do feel like our privacy rights should be taken in to consideration and respected by the university and i feel that they are. I do not go home at night and wonder what d2l is doing with my personal information or my grades or emails i have sent an instructor and with whom they are sharing it with. I don't think that the school or the site is out to get its students. I don't think that there is any third party sharing or any shady things going on on trusted educational sites. This isn't Facebook where i am posting personal information or a credit card account that i need to monitor and be concerned about. It is simply a platform to help students and instructors communicate and share more easily.
TOS;DR sounds like a really great idea when you first hear about it but the sad fact is that people won't even take the time to read simplified abbreviated versions of terms of service agreements. When you bring college students into that mix, they are DEFINITELY NOT going to be reading anything extra that they don't have to when they could just hit accept and go on with their day. I know that i wouldn't read them. I think that there are sites that this project could definitely help with. I know that on the terms of service on iTunes, users agree that they basically have no rights to the music they have purchased. People on sites like this where a money exchange is involved need to be protected and need help from projects like TOS;DR.
On the other hand, i don't think education technologies are all that serious. I do not believe that schools be obligated to provide TOS;DR-style explanations of the terms of service for required educational technologies. We were given access to this site to help us and make things centralized and organized. To demand things from someone who provided us with a helpful site that does nothing but good seems unnecessary to me. I believe that any attempt at enacting a law to enforce simplified TOS or even TOS at all on education technologies will go nowhere. D2l is not a file storing site where all students archive all of their life's work. Nothing of great value is kept on this site that i would be worried about. To me, this is an argument that does not need to be argued and a fight that does not need to be fought.
For most students, plagiarizing consists of direct copying and pasting from primary sources into their own documents. There is no covering up, it is very blatant and obvious. "When assignments are highly generic and not classroom-specific…” This exerpt from the Council of Writing Program Administrators basically sums up my view on plagiarism and copyright infringement in the classroom. Throughout my schooling, I have found that if I directly copy and paste my teacher’s assignment prompt into a search engine, I will find pages upon pages of answers and examples for that assignment given by other teachers and students. Students are being labeled as lazy, but are teachers the lazy ones?
Because of this rather lazy approach by teachers, students are being injured. For example, I know my writing skills are not where they should be partly because of the school system and the growing lack of genuine concern from them. In this situation, the teacher is gaining more free time and less time grading, less time formulating challenging assignments from students because they can just get them off the internet, and also gaining a paycheck for work they are hardly doing.
The children of today are just as smart as children back when there wasn’t the internet or google to aid in the writing process. “when there is no instruction on plagiarism and appropriate source attribution, and when students are not led through the iterative processes of writing and revising..” We are told what plagiarism is when we are in elementary school. Besides being told the basic definition, nothing else is done to further explain plagiarism to young student and how to avoid it. This creates a ripple affect. Students then carry on bad habits to middle school then high school and then college and this could prove detrimental to their overall success. There will always be the students that could care less about school and find ways to take the easy way out (this could be through plagiarism and copyright infringement). But to categorize students as those who “don't "value the opportunity of learning" (Howard) like Howard does is completely wrong.
I believe when addressing plagiarism, teachers need to look inward and their own teaching practices to see if they could be serving their students better. Only then can they address the problem of plagiarism with their students and they should be addressed and reprimanded accordingly. I do agree that plagiarism is a serious thing and students who plagiarize consistently should be disciplined but then given a meeting with their teacher to discuss the ins and outs of plagiarism. I believe that the more knowledge the students have, the less mistakes they will make by plagiarizing.
I believe that those who put themselves online are almost giving away their right to autonomy. We agree to the terms and services without reading them. We enter our emails, home addresses, and phone numbers into sites on a weekly basis. When we do things like this, are we asking for it? Privacy is something to be valued, but times have changed. Nowadays, if someone wants to protect their autonomy or privacy, they have to make an effort. You have to avoid social media sites, sites like google or bing, avoid credit cards to prevent identity theft, etc. In this age, we cannot be truly autonomous in most areas of life. Are we asking for the government intrusion and interference that Rosen speaks about? To a certain extent, yes.
That being said, as humans, we have learned to profit of the exploitation of others. We might be putting ourselves out there, but that doesn’t necessarily give the big guys the right to take advantage. Facebook is becoming more lax on their privacy policies and more and more apps are being developed like linkedin and foursquare where people can check in at different places, basically leaving a trail of their locations. Google does not forget. Just like in Seth Godin's blog post "Personal Branding in the Age of Google", if you are looking for a job employers can simply google your same to find out everything about you. Unfortunately, this can end up in unemployment or worse for many who are irresponsible online.
In certain cases, I am thankful for the lack of privacy and autonomy. I think that a lot of good can come from government involvement in our daily lives. In a way, it protects us. I am not trying to sound big brother-y, but there are definite pros to their involvement. If we didn't have outside sources there, I can't image what would happen. So many people are incarcerated from evidence found online and that protects us. The government is allowed to trace calls from bomb threats or 911 calls to capture the guilty and save the innocent. Could things like these have been done without government interference? I do not think so.