Even though this article appears to be impossible to read within the night it goes by quickly as long as one glances past the charts and what not. Joanna's findings are quite interesting especially in an electronic-media based society we have become. Of course, we have to remember this study was taken in 1997 before the storm of chat groups and facebookaphilia. However, her focus tends to be more on women and more specifically on the marginalized women in conversations, which she finds out tend to be White females. They are often shut out in the conversation, feeling suffocated not to speak, by the rules of being "kind" and essentially being a passive listener. Wolfe finds on the other hand that White males totally bum rush all other people with an astonishing high rate of discussion especially in face-to-face classroom discussion. As a white male who also has a latino background I felt like Wolfe's research might be leading to something. I prefer a more physical, face-to-face environment though I also quite often use facebook without complaint. Perhaps it is because I use more "assenting" terms than others.
Wolfe asks some great questions though I think (as discussed earlier) her research may have little to benefit in an age where almost all ethnic groups and even ESL students use CMC or computer media conversation. I remember when I was younger people used LiveJournal, which had a feed like a journal. The next craze became even more conversable hype with MySpace. I never thought I'd find something beyond such a fantastic website where people shared music, conversations, and what not. Then came Facebook, another MAJOR figure who (soon after I joined) had an immense boom in people joining. It has since become probably the top figure in computer communication. It also eliminated a lot of the other used chat items such as AIM and YIM which were instant message machines directly assigned to allow conversations like Wolfe's classes are able to do. Now with the ascension of Twitter into the world CMC can take another step towards technological leaps that draw more and more youth to converse via the internet and through electronic devices.
This is one glaring difference between Wolfe's study and a 2012 study. She mentions as well the lack of black students and asian students. What could be interesting as well would be to have ESL students talk to native speakers, which someone has done already though not to the statistical accuracy with which Wolfe provides for us.
Her method is very sound, but I think due to technological advances and the increase in computer literacy there might be shocking differences in a 2012 study of the same test. I think we must also be aware of our surroundings (i.e. where it takes place) in Austin, TX where there is a more segregated group of students as Wolfe seems all too aware of. Therefore, a more balanced approach within a place like USC or UCLA might benefit the results a bit more.
However, not all is faulty. Her research shows in great detail at least to some degree why people lack participation in classes and why some prefer internet conversations, which she seems to think lies in the fact that polite people do better in a controlled setting (CMC) whereas the more open setting males and other minority groups don't find a face-to-face challenge. Of course, this is two-fold for though Wolfe doesn't mention it there has to be some distinction between extroverts and introverts. Although these three classes she chooses the males and black females tend to be more open it probably has a lot to do with the fact that a majority of the males are extroverted where the females are introverted. So while it may be partially a cultural problem, it is also a cognitive factor.
No comments:
Post a Comment