Carr
Literally, Carr discusses the evolution of the understanding of the brain. He touches upon research through the ages and how the sentiment of what the brain is and how it is constructed has changed. In the early years of brain research, scientists believed that the brain was a fixed “machine” that matured during childhood and stayed that way through the course of our lives. Later, after much more detailed research and experimentation, scientists realized that the brain was, in fact, a dynamic, malleable network of synapses that was always adapting to its surroundings by way of neural plasticity.
Intellectually, this chapter dissects the understanding of what we know as the brain. It makes us think about the thing that thinks for us. Even as I write this using my fingers to type on my keyboard, the neural processes that are occurring are happening over networks of brain cells that have forged pathways over my lifetime. Carr does an excellent job referencing various works to navigate the changing perception of the brain and how it works, allowing us to think about the brain in a physical sense, as well as a spiritual one. The adaptation abilities of the human brain are remarkable, and as much as we may know about the brain now, there is so much more to discover.
Emotionally, this chapter made me feel reflective. It made me think of my own brain and how it is a representation of all my life experiences. Things that have happened to me during my life have made a physical impression of the construction of my brain, and these same experiences have molded my personality and the way I express myself today. A sense of wonderment and awe come over me as I think of how miraculous the human brain truly is. Hundreds of billions of cells interconnected in ways I could never fully comprehend working at the speed of light to make up this person that I call “me.”
To connect, I refer to Hairston’s interpretation of Shaughnessy’s thinking. “Shaughnessy’s insight is utterly simple and vitally important: we cannot teach students to write by looking only at what they have written. We must also understand how that product came into being, and why it assumed the form that it did. We have to try to understand what goes on during the internal act of writing and we have to intervene during the act of writing if we want to affect its outcome.” From a neurological standpoint, the how and the why are just as important as the physical act of writing. There are many thought processes that can be considered when thinking of how we write something, and why we choose to write something. It takes literal brain power to process these thoughts. Then, to actually pick up a pen and put it to paper is a completely different neural process that produces actionable results, i.e., physically writing a paragraph.
Ulmer
Literally, Ulmer discusses the idea of “teletheory,” which he describes as how academic discourse and the use of speaking, writing, and performing are connected using technology. He also touches upon how electronic technologies affect cognition amongst its users. He refers to Goody’s statements about the difference between oral communications and the emergence of written literacy. He ties the sentiments together by saying that “video can do the work of literacy, but no better than literacy can do the work of speech.”   He states that the uses of technology are as important to academic discourse as the institutional practices that use the technology themselves.
Intellectually, this makes me think of the progression of how we as human beings have expressed ourselves. From oral tradition passed down from generation to generation, to literacy becoming a staple of western education, to electracy in the forms of TV and film, the evolution is clear. The use of cinema in education has contributed to a new form of comprehension and cognitive learning. It is important, for the sake of academic discourse, that it continues to evolve as technology does.
Emotionally, it was a bit frustrating to read this introduction because it was a bit dense and difficult to follow along with at certain points. But, this feeling helped demonstrate the importance of “teletheory” and how using new technologies as a medium can enhance the effectiveness of understanding. Even the concept of what a classroom is or how class can be held. For example, when we met for class via Zoom a few weeks ago, we used technology as a medium to be connected and receive instruction. It makes me feel hopeful to think that if academic practices can continue to adapt with growing and changing technology, academic discourse will continue to strive forward.
To connect, I can’t help but refer to the reading by Carr for this week. Ulmer mentions how the use of technology affects mental cognition. To quote Carr, “… I began to worry that my use of the Internet might be changing the way my brain was processing information. I resisted the idea at first. It seemed ludicrous to think that fiddling with a computer, a mere tool, could alter in any deep or lasting way what was going on inside my head. But I was wrong. As neuroscientists have discovered, the brain—and the mind to which it gives rise—is forever a work in progress. That’s true not just for each of us as individuals. It’s true for all of us as a species.”  Our minds are forever changing, constantly adapting to the input data it receives. Ulmer discusses how the use of technology changes cognition, while Carr breaks down the processes by which this change happens. The use of the Internet, which is an animal of a medium in itself, has changed the we people think, literally and figuratively.
