In Kathrine Hayles Hyper and Deep Attention: The Generational Divide in Cognitive Modes, she explores the idea that the population of the world is undergoing a significant shift in the way our species is operating cognitively. More Specifically, in the way that we think. She begins the piece with explaining the difference between two types of “attentions”. One being called “hyper attention” and the other “deep attention”. She defines hyper attention as the ability to switch quickly between several tasks, and divide ones focus among several things, receiving a large amount of stimuli at once. Deep attention is the exact opposite. It is characterized by being deeply engaged in one activity, or stimuli, that requires a large amount of uninterrupted focus. She then goes on to explain that the generational shift from deep attention to hyper attention may be causing conflict between the two generations. When members of the younger generations are exhibiting hyper attention behavior more and more frequently as time moves forward, there is inevitably a conflict when the education system is centered around deep attention activities and assignments. She explains that each type of attention has its pros and cons, although deep attention allows young people to perform better in school, there is no way to accurately answer which is better or worse. It seems inevitable that the shift to hyper attention from deep attention in older generations will grow more and more prominent as years continue. I find it very interesting that Hayles highlights that because of this shift, the education system is subsequently faced with a decision, whether or not to tailor the system to better suit the hyper attentive characteristic of those like generation M or continue to focus on changing the students. Should schools attempt to provide a learning experience that involves higher levels of stimulation? Hayles suggest that the two will always be intertwined in a way, and that educators have no choice but to recognize that.
In the assigned pages in the Carolina rhetoric, argumentative writing styles are discussed. It described and explains three different types of formats for constructing an argument based on the different type of support or evidence you have. The Toulmin model is the one that capitalizes on the use of pure evidence from surveys, studies or other collected data. This method of argument appeals largely to logic. The rogerian argument works primarily by building an actual or imagined sense of common ground, or gray, o black and white areas (or at least that’s how understood it). The general modern format is the one that most of us are familiar with. An introduction begins the paper and introduces the claims, followed by the main points of your argument which can be your evidence or support, followed by you addressing a counterargument followed by a conclusion. The rest of the chapter goes deeper into how to successfully write each piece of your paper. No matter what type of argument model you choose from those discussed above, every argumentative writing piece needs an efficient thesis, and introduction – which lots of students struggle with. A good argumentative paper is also categorized by good transitions between paragraphs and good presentation of possible counter arguments.