As more and more of my colleagues and instructors are finding ways of incorporating wikis and bloggs into their pedagogy, I'm finding that I may, too, want to consider these spaces as I continually think of ways in which I may further the education of my students.
Currently, I have a fellow instructor using wiki in their (Engl) 101 course and they have raved about how enjoyable it is. My colleague has expressed much appreciation for the inclusion(s) of such spaces in the class - and specifically, how it allows for collaboration outside of school, over the internet. However, although it does allow for another opportunity for collaboration outside of the classroom, I do still worry about all of my students being able to access such a device.
The use of computer technology in my own pedagogy cause me great concern. I'm nervous that even with my students having an AML account, which allows them to use computer technology to access interfaces deemed "necessary" for the course, but I often wonder if its as good as I'm equating it to be. I think, and hope I'm enhancing the education of each student I have by allowing them to use interfaces that they may be more comfortable using - but the more I use technology in the classroom, the more critical I become when assessing the success of each medium.
Rebecca Lundin states, in her piece Teaching With Wikis: Toward a Networked Pedagogy, "This type of work encourages teachers to reexamine and redefine their goals for the classroom, asking and demonstrating how established teaching practices can be stretched and strained with the introduction of new technological practices" (433) And, because of assertions like hers, which I agree with, I find myself still arguing with myself whether or not I should continue using computer technology.
Charles Lowe and Terra Williams, in their piece Moving to the Public: Weblogs in the Writing Classroom, explain that "given that students have access to the Internet, weblogs can easily replace traditional classroom uses of the private print journal." Which, given my current doubts with the incorporation of computer technology, allows me to appreciate this type of computer technology, instead of the "traditional" paper equivalent. Lowe and Williams discuss a lot of really interesting points that they associate weblogs and academic success to, and the ways that they have introduced blogs into the classroom makes sense and for an "easy" inclusion if instructors wanted to use such a device in their classroom. I also appreciate their assertion that "Weblogs, as an electronic publishing tool, also offer significant practical and pedagogical differences and advantages over student hypertext assignments for both writing teachers and students alike" which then reiterates a benefit for both teacher and student.
I have yet to incorporate either of these devices into my course, but the readings from this week have me considering an alternative to that. An initial step would be to have my students write their one page summaries on blogger.com instead of writing them on paper and turning them in...haha actually, I'm pretty sure I'll be doing so!!!
Monday, November 15, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
How I hope that Facebook represents me...
Because I'm often very critical of how I'm being represented and perceived by others, I try extremely hard to maintain a facebook page that is only inclusive of those things I would like people to associate me with. From the friends that I have, to the information I've included about myself, to the comments which are critically and rhetorically analyzed as soon as they are posted (and deleted if I feel it has the potential to be taken the wrong way), to the pictures I post and allow to be tagged in - I try to maintain a profile that is as accurate as possible to the person I hope I have become.
My audience and the way they interpret my page, in a way, is more important to me than anything else. We can never be sure how people are going to/or do interpret the things we say and do, so I use my online profile to further support the ideals/beliefs that I continually try to exhibit on a day to day basis...almost like a primary source in supporting the way in which I'm constructing myself.
The friends that I have on Facebook are inclusive of those who I have a continual relationship with, and those who I truly consider friends (aside from a few that I'm still waiting for the right time to "request friendships with"). The pictures that are included in/on my page are only those which I feel adequate represent the type of person I am, without me feeling like I would have to explain the situation or context. The same can be said for the comments/bio info that is a part of my page. Over the years I've noticed that it is easy for a lot of images/words to be taken out of context and misrepresenting the person and/or situation. In fear of this happening, I take the extra time to care about the "what ifs" even though it is a painstaking and annoying task.
Reading Stephanie Vie's article, "Digital Divide 2.0: 'Generation M' and Online Social Networking Sites in the Composition Classroom", I agree that "clearly there are multiple entry points for bringing online social networking sites into the classroom to help students think about larger societal issues regarding intellectual property, attribution, and marketing" simply due to the ways in which I've created my own Facebook page and the assignment that I know I could construct as a result(16). And at the beginning of the semester, with 51 of the 52 students I instruct, stating that they had Facebook pages - I knew that I had to find a way of incorporating that site into my pedagogy. I ended up creating a separate account solely for English 101, because as an instructor, and student, I'm aware that "these Generation M students [use] online social networking sites in multiple ways: to share class notes and ask questions about homework" as well as the fact that "the majority of Generation M students have embraced online social networking sites, and even those students who chose not to participate in these sites acknowledged the profound influence of MySpace and Facebook on college students' lives" (17). With so many students today using social networking sites for academic purposes, I felt that it would be a disservice to my students not to incorporate it, somehow, into my course.
Sorry I was unable to add a screen shot of my Facebook account (still having trouble uploading images), but here is a url to my page...
http://www.facebook.com/srch.php?nm=malcolm+oliver+II
My audience and the way they interpret my page, in a way, is more important to me than anything else. We can never be sure how people are going to/or do interpret the things we say and do, so I use my online profile to further support the ideals/beliefs that I continually try to exhibit on a day to day basis...almost like a primary source in supporting the way in which I'm constructing myself.
The friends that I have on Facebook are inclusive of those who I have a continual relationship with, and those who I truly consider friends (aside from a few that I'm still waiting for the right time to "request friendships with"). The pictures that are included in/on my page are only those which I feel adequate represent the type of person I am, without me feeling like I would have to explain the situation or context. The same can be said for the comments/bio info that is a part of my page. Over the years I've noticed that it is easy for a lot of images/words to be taken out of context and misrepresenting the person and/or situation. In fear of this happening, I take the extra time to care about the "what ifs" even though it is a painstaking and annoying task.
Reading Stephanie Vie's article, "Digital Divide 2.0: 'Generation M' and Online Social Networking Sites in the Composition Classroom", I agree that "clearly there are multiple entry points for bringing online social networking sites into the classroom to help students think about larger societal issues regarding intellectual property, attribution, and marketing" simply due to the ways in which I've created my own Facebook page and the assignment that I know I could construct as a result(16). And at the beginning of the semester, with 51 of the 52 students I instruct, stating that they had Facebook pages - I knew that I had to find a way of incorporating that site into my pedagogy. I ended up creating a separate account solely for English 101, because as an instructor, and student, I'm aware that "these Generation M students [use] online social networking sites in multiple ways: to share class notes and ask questions about homework" as well as the fact that "the majority of Generation M students have embraced online social networking sites, and even those students who chose not to participate in these sites acknowledged the profound influence of MySpace and Facebook on college students' lives" (17). With so many students today using social networking sites for academic purposes, I felt that it would be a disservice to my students not to incorporate it, somehow, into my course.
Sorry I was unable to add a screen shot of my Facebook account (still having trouble uploading images), but here is a url to my page...
http://www.facebook.com/srch.php?nm=malcolm+oliver+II
Applying a few of James Gee's "Learning Principles" to the classroom
Looking through James Gee's "Learning Principles", I've found a few that I could include into the classroom without the use of video games. The learning principles I'll be working with for the sake of this blogg are as follows: 1) #2 - Design Principles, 2) #15 - Probing Principle, 3) #20 - Multimodal Principle, and 4) #36 - Insider Principle.
Gee's "Design Principle" states that "learning about and coming to appreciate design and design principles is core to the leaning experience", which is why I feel that this principle is expecially important for my students to understand as it relates to the class, and the "video game" aspects that I feel are included in my syllabus. If my students take the time to analyze/understand how I've designed the game, their English 101 class, then they will have the necessary tools to understand how each paper is a build up on the previous and all a piece of the larger puzzle - which is to understand the course subject which is "what is rhetoric?".
The "Probing Principle" allows for an understanding that "Learning is a cycle of probing the world (doing something); reflecting in and on this action and, on this basis, forming a hypothesis; reprobing the world to test this hypothesis; and then accepting or rethinking the hypothesis". My students are allowed this opportunity, whether they realize it or not, as supported by the different writing assignments of the course. As the class is centered around the question of "what is rhetoric", my students are allowed to probe and apply this question to the world as they know it and form initial ideas, supported by their sources, as to how the world works in regard to how rhetoric is used. At the end of the semester, the students then write their last paper which is an analysis of what they've learned and whether their understanding of rhetoric has remained the same/or changed from the beginning of the semester.
Thinking about the "Multimodal Principle" and how it attempts to show that "meaning and knowledge are built up through various modalities (images, texts, symbols, interactions, abstract design, sound, etc.), not just words," I require my students to complete a multimodal presentation using prezi.com for two of their major writing assignments. This use of multimodality is designed to show my students that with images, texts, symbols, etc...you can achieve the same goals as a writen text when applying meaning.
Lastly, the "Insider Principle" asserts that "The learner is an "insider," "teacher," and "producer" (not just a consumer) able to customize the learning experience and the domain/game from the beginning and throughout the experience." From the very first writing assignment to the last one, my students are becoming the "insider", "teacher", and the "producer" as they are continually investigating, and refining, their understanding of rhetoric, in different circumstances, so that they are able to educate the class and instructor on their findings.
I really appreciated Gee's learning principles because they made me realize how much the classroom really is like a video game - and the multitude of similarities there are between playing a game, and being a student in a class and/or being an instructor. I also realized that I pretty much constructed a class based upon a lot of learning principles seen in video games.
Gee's "Design Principle" states that "learning about and coming to appreciate design and design principles is core to the leaning experience", which is why I feel that this principle is expecially important for my students to understand as it relates to the class, and the "video game" aspects that I feel are included in my syllabus. If my students take the time to analyze/understand how I've designed the game, their English 101 class, then they will have the necessary tools to understand how each paper is a build up on the previous and all a piece of the larger puzzle - which is to understand the course subject which is "what is rhetoric?".
The "Probing Principle" allows for an understanding that "Learning is a cycle of probing the world (doing something); reflecting in and on this action and, on this basis, forming a hypothesis; reprobing the world to test this hypothesis; and then accepting or rethinking the hypothesis". My students are allowed this opportunity, whether they realize it or not, as supported by the different writing assignments of the course. As the class is centered around the question of "what is rhetoric", my students are allowed to probe and apply this question to the world as they know it and form initial ideas, supported by their sources, as to how the world works in regard to how rhetoric is used. At the end of the semester, the students then write their last paper which is an analysis of what they've learned and whether their understanding of rhetoric has remained the same/or changed from the beginning of the semester.
Thinking about the "Multimodal Principle" and how it attempts to show that "meaning and knowledge are built up through various modalities (images, texts, symbols, interactions, abstract design, sound, etc.), not just words," I require my students to complete a multimodal presentation using prezi.com for two of their major writing assignments. This use of multimodality is designed to show my students that with images, texts, symbols, etc...you can achieve the same goals as a writen text when applying meaning.
Lastly, the "Insider Principle" asserts that "The learner is an "insider," "teacher," and "producer" (not just a consumer) able to customize the learning experience and the domain/game from the beginning and throughout the experience." From the very first writing assignment to the last one, my students are becoming the "insider", "teacher", and the "producer" as they are continually investigating, and refining, their understanding of rhetoric, in different circumstances, so that they are able to educate the class and instructor on their findings.
I really appreciated Gee's learning principles because they made me realize how much the classroom really is like a video game - and the multitude of similarities there are between playing a game, and being a student in a class and/or being an instructor. I also realized that I pretty much constructed a class based upon a lot of learning principles seen in video games.
Unpacking my experience with "Angel Chat"
As I reflect upon the chat that our class had via the Angel web page, I immediately think about how much I enjoyed it. I found that as I was engaging in the conversation(s) from the privacy and comfort of my office, I had feeling of appreciation and pleasure. I was appreciative for the exercise because it made me realize that I had similar feeling that my students have been expressing to me as I've questioned them about their experience(s) with online learning vs. in class learning. My students and I seem to share similar feelings of freedom and safety when discussing the contents of the class. There just seemed to be less pressure...
Aspects that I especially appreciated about the Angel chat are as follows (in no particular order): 1) the class environment, 2) effectiveness of the exercise, and 3) the level of participation that I felt I had. I was really curious to see, read, the character of my colleagues in a different medium than the classroom. I wanted to see if the way we interacted with each other would be the same as we do in the classroom, and I realized that I kind of like the online chat more....only in the sense that it felt like more of my peers had a stronger voice online than they do in the classroom. I also really like the exercise, because it showed me that this type of "classroom" activity is definitely something that can be done effectively. I was unsure about how successful this would be, but amidst all of the chaos of responding to questions and comments, as they rapidly came up, I felt that there was a good attempt to stay focused on current with the information being presented. Lastly, I was also really excited about my level of participation. I felt that I was pretty vocal, and contributed to the different ideas that were discussed.
Thinking about this exercise, and whether or not I'll use it in my classroom... I definitely could see myself using this type of activity in my classroom, however, I feel that as an instructor I would need a strict plan of action to ensure that the tasks are being completed and that the students were able to maintain the same, if not a heightened amount, of participation that they do in the classroom.
Overall, I really enjoyed this experience.
Aspects that I especially appreciated about the Angel chat are as follows (in no particular order): 1) the class environment, 2) effectiveness of the exercise, and 3) the level of participation that I felt I had. I was really curious to see, read, the character of my colleagues in a different medium than the classroom. I wanted to see if the way we interacted with each other would be the same as we do in the classroom, and I realized that I kind of like the online chat more....only in the sense that it felt like more of my peers had a stronger voice online than they do in the classroom. I also really like the exercise, because it showed me that this type of "classroom" activity is definitely something that can be done effectively. I was unsure about how successful this would be, but amidst all of the chaos of responding to questions and comments, as they rapidly came up, I felt that there was a good attempt to stay focused on current with the information being presented. Lastly, I was also really excited about my level of participation. I felt that I was pretty vocal, and contributed to the different ideas that were discussed.
Thinking about this exercise, and whether or not I'll use it in my classroom... I definitely could see myself using this type of activity in my classroom, however, I feel that as an instructor I would need a strict plan of action to ensure that the tasks are being completed and that the students were able to maintain the same, if not a heightened amount, of participation that they do in the classroom.
Overall, I really enjoyed this experience.
Representing my experience w/ distance education and e-learning
Student Learning. As Peterson brought up isolation/communication failure between the instructor and student in her piece, I immeadiately thought back to my brief experience with e-learning and associated those two areas to the frustration that I felt as a result to e-learning. No matter when I called, it seemed like I was always getting a voicemail, or being informed that the person I was attempting to reach was unavailable. It was terribly hard and frustrating to establish communication with the DDP, and my instrucrtor for the course. It became so trying, that I gave up on e-learning for the summer, and took the course onsite when I returned in the fall.Sorry, I'm having difficulty uploading more pictures...
My second image was that of two people "high-fiving", which is supposed to represent Peterson's issuse of educational goals. I felt that the educational goals of the DDP course/program was to simply have their students pass the class. It was so informal and difficult to manage for me, that it made me feel as if the only concern for the administration was, simply, whether or not the student passed the class.
My third image was a picture of 4 individual lines going from one side of the paper to the next. Three of the lines have a bunch of swirls and loops as it goes from one side to the next, and one line went in a straight line from left to right. This was going to be my reprentative of Peterson's educational goal relating to Teacher Role. It appeared to be that the teacher's role, in my experience with e-learning, was to simply get me from A to B in a sea of confusion. The interface we were using was difficult for me to manuever through, and with each attempt to ask questions of clarity unanswered - it felt that the only thing they wanted me to do was turn in the homework as best as possible and pass the class.
In short, I don't think I'll ever consider e-learning as a student again.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
My two cent$...as questions
1) If you were asked by Congress to help them "specify precisely the kinds of uses of creative work that should be regulated by copyright law", what would your answer be? ( Lessig 269)
2) When we use interfaces such as youtube and google, do you think that we benefit equally from each other? Lessig speaks about the value that we give to sites such as these when we use them, 234-235, and I'm wondering if you feel that we get the same level of value in return. Is there a way that we potentially could if we do not currently?
A 3rd Question...we'll call it change?
I'm not sure where in Remix I read this, but I'm pretty sure that Lessig introduces the idea of Amateur Copyright Laws(?)...As I consider Lessig's example of a child uploading different things onto youtube and having to clear copyright laws for each clip used, Lessig 266, would it be beneficial to establish amateur copyright laws so that it would afford users an "easier" time when trying to clear copyright?
2) When we use interfaces such as youtube and google, do you think that we benefit equally from each other? Lessig speaks about the value that we give to sites such as these when we use them, 234-235, and I'm wondering if you feel that we get the same level of value in return. Is there a way that we potentially could if we do not currently?
A 3rd Question...we'll call it change?
I'm not sure where in Remix I read this, but I'm pretty sure that Lessig introduces the idea of Amateur Copyright Laws(?)...As I consider Lessig's example of a child uploading different things onto youtube and having to clear copyright laws for each clip used, Lessig 266, would it be beneficial to establish amateur copyright laws so that it would afford users an "easier" time when trying to clear copyright?
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Copyright and Plagiarism
I found myself really interested in the reading(s) for this week, because of the connotations that I feel are associated with both of them? haha I pose it as a question, because I'm not quite sure what, exactly, had me so fascinated with the reading(s) for this week...actually that's a lie.
The second piece, It wasn't me, was it?: Plagiarism and the Web by DeVoss/Rosati is especially interesting because it states that "first-year composition teachers have a key role in helping the students adapt to this space," this space being the Internet and the copyright/plagiarism laws that coincide with it (DeVoss/Rosati 153)...which continued to spark my interest as I began to think of the different ways in which I teach/introduce copyright/plagiarism into my 101 classroom, and whether not I am making clear distinctions between what is and is not plagiarism - as well as violating copyright laws. This becomes considerably more difficult because, as John Logie, author of Champing at the Bits: Computers, Copyright, and the Composition Classroom, states, "Whenever composition instructors use computer technology within their classrooms, they raise exponentially the likelihood that the work completed within their classes will run afoul of current intellectual property laws" (Logie 135). Essentially, we are always running the risk of breaking the rules of the United States Copyright laws that were last updated in the 1970's - and, as Logie asserts, this was a period where "the personal computer was still a prototype" (Logie 135)
We still have hope, however. As educators, we are allowed the opportunity to dance around copyright laws with the assistance of "fair use", which lets us use copyrighted materials in our classrooms as long as it is nontransformative - yet educators who fall in the gray area with their usage with be dealt with on a case by case reading of the what and how the information was used? And plagiarism, oh what a mess.
While I agree with Devoss/Rosati that plagiarism can be an occurrence due to a lack of understanding of how to properly integrate/work with outside material into one's own...I really disliked the feeling that I got when reading this. It seemed like as instructors they were telling us to be aware that students will plagiarize, but be careful because it is tricky...don't jump to the gun and say that its plagiarism, when it could be a lack of understanding of how to properly write from sources - but also don't let that be the student's excuse..."I thought I was doing it right. I was plagiarizing?"
These are both two very intricate fields, and the more I research them I find myself that much more confused. I wonder, as an instructor, if I have broken the copyright laws of those whose materials I've used in class...
Post Script: I've got major beef with the term/phrase "fair use".
The second piece, It wasn't me, was it?: Plagiarism and the Web by DeVoss/Rosati is especially interesting because it states that "first-year composition teachers have a key role in helping the students adapt to this space," this space being the Internet and the copyright/plagiarism laws that coincide with it (DeVoss/Rosati 153)...which continued to spark my interest as I began to think of the different ways in which I teach/introduce copyright/plagiarism into my 101 classroom, and whether not I am making clear distinctions between what is and is not plagiarism - as well as violating copyright laws. This becomes considerably more difficult because, as John Logie, author of Champing at the Bits: Computers, Copyright, and the Composition Classroom, states, "Whenever composition instructors use computer technology within their classrooms, they raise exponentially the likelihood that the work completed within their classes will run afoul of current intellectual property laws" (Logie 135). Essentially, we are always running the risk of breaking the rules of the United States Copyright laws that were last updated in the 1970's - and, as Logie asserts, this was a period where "the personal computer was still a prototype" (Logie 135)
We still have hope, however. As educators, we are allowed the opportunity to dance around copyright laws with the assistance of "fair use", which lets us use copyrighted materials in our classrooms as long as it is nontransformative - yet educators who fall in the gray area with their usage with be dealt with on a case by case reading of the what and how the information was used? And plagiarism, oh what a mess.
While I agree with Devoss/Rosati that plagiarism can be an occurrence due to a lack of understanding of how to properly integrate/work with outside material into one's own...I really disliked the feeling that I got when reading this. It seemed like as instructors they were telling us to be aware that students will plagiarize, but be careful because it is tricky...don't jump to the gun and say that its plagiarism, when it could be a lack of understanding of how to properly write from sources - but also don't let that be the student's excuse..."I thought I was doing it right. I was plagiarizing?"
These are both two very intricate fields, and the more I research them I find myself that much more confused. I wonder, as an instructor, if I have broken the copyright laws of those whose materials I've used in class...
Post Script: I've got major beef with the term/phrase "fair use".
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
The Digital Divide...
This week as I read Banks and Selfe & Selfe, I was reminded of what is called the "digital divide" and the intricacies involved within the term. Race, education, economic/social status, ect. have all been cited as contributing factors to the digital divide, and as stated in Banks' piece, "...systemic factors limiting the participation of people of color..." (Banks 21) However, as I continued with my reading, I found myself thinking "why is it that we end up in this endless cycle when we learn about Black freedom struggle? (Banks 11)
I no longer believe that the digital divide is a color "thing" or dealing mainly with African Americans because "I don't feel there is much of a divide anymore. The Internet is becoming relevant in our lives as a result of e-mail and chat sites, and African Americans are going online in droves" (Banks 35). In my opinion, the digital dived should focus its attention on access, and access alone. We should be more worried with simply trying to put technology in the hands of everyone, regardless of their color or how they got to where they are...the issue should be whether or not they have access to the technology or not. Furthermore, statements such as "computers are not part of black culture" (Banks 21) are 1. inaccurate and 2. should be left out of discussions. I'm not African American, but I am Trinidadian American which falls into the general "black" category, and I (and honestlyat least of 85% of my "black" friends) have grown up with a computer or the availability to reach one. Again, I assert that it isn't a "color thing", rather a "thing" of access.
So then, how do we allow access to all those in need? I'm not sure, but I do know that attempts have, and continue to be made. Banks refers to the Clinton Administration and their attempts to "wire all of America", and even the Bush Administration's attempts with the "No Child Left Behind Act". Regardless of how successful these attempts have been, even though I'm sure some could argue that they were both somewhat "successful", there are and continue to be attempts made to fix the problem. And, simultaneously, we have instructors who continue to allow access to all of their students in an attempt increase the level of technological literacy among all students.
As an English 101 instructor, I've pondered upon how I may incorporate technology into my classroom, so that every student would have the opportunity to have access to the compositional tool(s) that it provides. And, as I prepare to include technology into my pedagogy - my concern is that all students are able to experience it, not just those of a certain race or ethnicity...But getting back to what Banks said about African American literacy and technology...
I do agree that better incorporating technology into black history may serve as a more enhanced way of learning about it, but I'm still not convinced that...(unsure of how to most appropriately word my thought, so I hope to comeback to this). And besides, incorporating technology to any race, I think, would better benefit others as they are attempting to learn about their culture.
I think, in closing, all I'm trying to say is that I don't feel race should be the driving focus as to why some have access to technology. It could have been a contributing factor before, but I don't feel as if it is necessarily the case today...but, maybe I'm crazy and this is just my "privilege" speaking.
I no longer believe that the digital divide is a color "thing" or dealing mainly with African Americans because "I don't feel there is much of a divide anymore. The Internet is becoming relevant in our lives as a result of e-mail and chat sites, and African Americans are going online in droves" (Banks 35). In my opinion, the digital dived should focus its attention on access, and access alone. We should be more worried with simply trying to put technology in the hands of everyone, regardless of their color or how they got to where they are...the issue should be whether or not they have access to the technology or not. Furthermore, statements such as "computers are not part of black culture" (Banks 21) are 1. inaccurate and 2. should be left out of discussions. I'm not African American, but I am Trinidadian American which falls into the general "black" category, and I (and honestlyat least of 85% of my "black" friends) have grown up with a computer or the availability to reach one. Again, I assert that it isn't a "color thing", rather a "thing" of access.
So then, how do we allow access to all those in need? I'm not sure, but I do know that attempts have, and continue to be made. Banks refers to the Clinton Administration and their attempts to "wire all of America", and even the Bush Administration's attempts with the "No Child Left Behind Act". Regardless of how successful these attempts have been, even though I'm sure some could argue that they were both somewhat "successful", there are and continue to be attempts made to fix the problem. And, simultaneously, we have instructors who continue to allow access to all of their students in an attempt increase the level of technological literacy among all students.
As an English 101 instructor, I've pondered upon how I may incorporate technology into my classroom, so that every student would have the opportunity to have access to the compositional tool(s) that it provides. And, as I prepare to include technology into my pedagogy - my concern is that all students are able to experience it, not just those of a certain race or ethnicity...But getting back to what Banks said about African American literacy and technology...
I do agree that better incorporating technology into black history may serve as a more enhanced way of learning about it, but I'm still not convinced that...(unsure of how to most appropriately word my thought, so I hope to comeback to this). And besides, incorporating technology to any race, I think, would better benefit others as they are attempting to learn about their culture.
I think, in closing, all I'm trying to say is that I don't feel race should be the driving focus as to why some have access to technology. It could have been a contributing factor before, but I don't feel as if it is necessarily the case today...but, maybe I'm crazy and this is just my "privilege" speaking.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Aurality (orality) in the rhetoric/composition classroom
After reading Cynthia Self's piece, The Movement of Air, the Breath of Meaning" Aurality and Multimodal Composing, and Doug Hesse's response to Self's piece, I found myself seemingly in the same position I was in before I read either or the pieces. I have always thought that as a student, and now an Instructor of college level English 101, that aurality/orality has always played an integral part in the composition classroom.
As an English 101 instructor I feel that I have consistently given credit to aurality/orality in the classroom, and as a student I have witnessed the same. In the class that I instructed today I orally discussed the lecture to the class, they got together with their classmates and discussed and wrote down their assignment, and then proceeded to write in on the board and orally communicate their response to the task to the class for them to hear and see simultaneously. And, as a student, I can remember when last semester we had a most enjoyable time discussing/hearing/writing about the type of "vernacular expressive arts" education that Self introduces in her piece which she feels we may be deviating from (624).
In My Contact Zone Rhetoric(s) course, we had a section where we studied story telling and vernacular expressive arts. During this time we read some, discussed a few, and then were able to also hear actual expressive arts/storytelling experiences that we were then able to use along with the written material as we were becoming more familiar with the entirety of it all. I definitely understand the value that Self and her colleagues are placing on aurality/orality, and specifically the vernacular expressive arts, but to say oratorical performances, debates, orations, and declamations are used to "build students' general skill in public speaking" and not to "encourage specialized inquiry" is a little bit unfair. I feel that, although those are some results of those exercises, it is not all that they are limited too - if that was the case, then why wouldn't we simply send the students to the comm departments to learn and engage in those specific activities?
I really do appreciate the effort that Self is exhibiting with her piece, but because I am a student of rhetoric, and an Instructor who teaches his 101 course with the focus question "what is rhetoric", I find it a little insulting that she would say "as teachers of rhetoric and composition, our responsibility is to teach students effective, rhetorically based strategies for taking advantage of all available means of communicating effectively and productively as literate citizens" (644). I feel confident in stating that the vast majority of rhetoric and composition instructor understand that part of their obligations to their students is to teach them all available means of communication because that is a piece to the actual definition of rhetoric. I even have had a colleague of mine already assign the Public Service Announcement (PSA) assignment that she offers up as an effective way to incorporate aurality/orality into the classroom (643). A lot of the information that I reading seemed like it has already been a part of the English field...which could also be a result of her articles and others in the field.
I did really appreciate the response from Doug Hesse, because we seem to share similar thoughts as it pertains to this discussion of aurality/orality. I, too, feel as if "I'm inclined to make a place for the aurality in my own teaching even as I ponder whether I'm overstepping or sidestepping professional roles that best serve student and social interests" (605).
As an English 101 instructor I feel that I have consistently given credit to aurality/orality in the classroom, and as a student I have witnessed the same. In the class that I instructed today I orally discussed the lecture to the class, they got together with their classmates and discussed and wrote down their assignment, and then proceeded to write in on the board and orally communicate their response to the task to the class for them to hear and see simultaneously. And, as a student, I can remember when last semester we had a most enjoyable time discussing/hearing/writing about the type of "vernacular expressive arts" education that Self introduces in her piece which she feels we may be deviating from (624).
In My Contact Zone Rhetoric(s) course, we had a section where we studied story telling and vernacular expressive arts. During this time we read some, discussed a few, and then were able to also hear actual expressive arts/storytelling experiences that we were then able to use along with the written material as we were becoming more familiar with the entirety of it all. I definitely understand the value that Self and her colleagues are placing on aurality/orality, and specifically the vernacular expressive arts, but to say oratorical performances, debates, orations, and declamations are used to "build students' general skill in public speaking" and not to "encourage specialized inquiry" is a little bit unfair. I feel that, although those are some results of those exercises, it is not all that they are limited too - if that was the case, then why wouldn't we simply send the students to the comm departments to learn and engage in those specific activities?
I really do appreciate the effort that Self is exhibiting with her piece, but because I am a student of rhetoric, and an Instructor who teaches his 101 course with the focus question "what is rhetoric", I find it a little insulting that she would say "as teachers of rhetoric and composition, our responsibility is to teach students effective, rhetorically based strategies for taking advantage of all available means of communicating effectively and productively as literate citizens" (644). I feel confident in stating that the vast majority of rhetoric and composition instructor understand that part of their obligations to their students is to teach them all available means of communication because that is a piece to the actual definition of rhetoric. I even have had a colleague of mine already assign the Public Service Announcement (PSA) assignment that she offers up as an effective way to incorporate aurality/orality into the classroom (643). A lot of the information that I reading seemed like it has already been a part of the English field...which could also be a result of her articles and others in the field.
I did really appreciate the response from Doug Hesse, because we seem to share similar thoughts as it pertains to this discussion of aurality/orality. I, too, feel as if "I'm inclined to make a place for the aurality in my own teaching even as I ponder whether I'm overstepping or sidestepping professional roles that best serve student and social interests" (605).
Monday, August 30, 2010
Attempting to stop the computer technology that is starting to take over my life
This week has me reflecting on my relationship with computer technology as a student, instructor, and as a "regular" person. And, as I consider those different types of relationships that I have with computer technology - I feel as if it is slowly making me so dependent on it that its beginning to take over my life.
As a student, I've seen a steady increase in the amount of time that I spend using computer technology. Where I once mainly used a computer to word process or occasionally use the electronic mail features associated with computer technology, I now find myself using computer technology, in one form or another, more than I sleep. My current scholarship has me using computer technology to do virtually any and ever thing. I can research, word process, electronic mail, skype, tweet, give presentations, and a panoply of other features which, in theory, should assist in making me a "better student". However, with all of the "assistance" that this technology is allowing, it is sometimes hard not to psychically go through the actions of researching, writing, conversing, etc in real time and not in the time of computer technology. I'm beginning to feel lazy and less creative as a student because the allowances of computer technology sometimes have me taking the easier way.
Even as an instructor I've seen my dependence on computer technology greatly increase. At the start of last semester, my first time instructing at the college level, I was determined not to use computer technology in my pedagogy because I felt that it would be more of a hindrance than a help to my students. I was unsure of how to teach them how to most effectively use computer technology in the scope of our class without feeling like they were using digital spaces such as easybib.com because it did the work for them, and not because they knew how to do it and were in a time crunch. Aside from actual instruction with my class, I also depend heavily on computer technology to keep me current with the questions/concerns that are vocalized by my students which are sent to me via electronic mail and the facebook profile that is a part of the course. I find myself checking my email routinely throughout the day and night so that I may assist my students with the work that they are doing. And now that this type of technology has infiltrated my student/instructor side in the way that it has, I've found that it is now greatly affecting me as a "regular" person.
Currently I have a Blackberry which has my student and instructor emails, access to the facebook group that I have for my English 101 class(s), my twitter and blogger accounts for my scholarship as a student, and every other form of computer technology that I should need. I can now do everything from my phone, which has made separating my personal and academic lives somewhat of a nightmare. I'm constantly getting messages and updates throughout the day and into the night from both sides of the spectrum. The computer technology helps me maintain and stay abreast on assignments/tasks that I have, but it makes time outside of academia virtually nonexistent and now a part of my personal life. I've been seeing, and using, these different forms of "new media" routinely for the last few years and it is hard to imagine that I'll be stopping any time soon.
Anne Frances Wysocki, in her piece "Opening New Media to Writing: Openings & Justifications" states that "new media texts do not have to be digital; instead, any text that has been designed so that its materiality is not effaced can count as new media. New media texts can be made of anything; what is important is that whoever produces the text and whoever consumes it understand" (15). Due to this understanding of new media, I feel that in order to redefine the relationship that I have with computer technology, I need to reassess how I've been using it and currently understand its purpose - and not let it take over. I use computer technology and new media(s) so much, currently, that I have looked past just how effective it has been and focused on my over use of it. The new media that I've incorporated into my pedagogy has greatly improved the instructing that I do, as well as the new media that I'm using in my scholarship as a student. I think the lack of understanding that I'm dealing with, is how to keep it from seeping into my personal sphere.
As a student, I've seen a steady increase in the amount of time that I spend using computer technology. Where I once mainly used a computer to word process or occasionally use the electronic mail features associated with computer technology, I now find myself using computer technology, in one form or another, more than I sleep. My current scholarship has me using computer technology to do virtually any and ever thing. I can research, word process, electronic mail, skype, tweet, give presentations, and a panoply of other features which, in theory, should assist in making me a "better student". However, with all of the "assistance" that this technology is allowing, it is sometimes hard not to psychically go through the actions of researching, writing, conversing, etc in real time and not in the time of computer technology. I'm beginning to feel lazy and less creative as a student because the allowances of computer technology sometimes have me taking the easier way.
Even as an instructor I've seen my dependence on computer technology greatly increase. At the start of last semester, my first time instructing at the college level, I was determined not to use computer technology in my pedagogy because I felt that it would be more of a hindrance than a help to my students. I was unsure of how to teach them how to most effectively use computer technology in the scope of our class without feeling like they were using digital spaces such as easybib.com because it did the work for them, and not because they knew how to do it and were in a time crunch. Aside from actual instruction with my class, I also depend heavily on computer technology to keep me current with the questions/concerns that are vocalized by my students which are sent to me via electronic mail and the facebook profile that is a part of the course. I find myself checking my email routinely throughout the day and night so that I may assist my students with the work that they are doing. And now that this type of technology has infiltrated my student/instructor side in the way that it has, I've found that it is now greatly affecting me as a "regular" person.
Currently I have a Blackberry which has my student and instructor emails, access to the facebook group that I have for my English 101 class(s), my twitter and blogger accounts for my scholarship as a student, and every other form of computer technology that I should need. I can now do everything from my phone, which has made separating my personal and academic lives somewhat of a nightmare. I'm constantly getting messages and updates throughout the day and into the night from both sides of the spectrum. The computer technology helps me maintain and stay abreast on assignments/tasks that I have, but it makes time outside of academia virtually nonexistent and now a part of my personal life. I've been seeing, and using, these different forms of "new media" routinely for the last few years and it is hard to imagine that I'll be stopping any time soon.
Anne Frances Wysocki, in her piece "Opening New Media to Writing: Openings & Justifications" states that "new media texts do not have to be digital; instead, any text that has been designed so that its materiality is not effaced can count as new media. New media texts can be made of anything; what is important is that whoever produces the text and whoever consumes it understand" (15). Due to this understanding of new media, I feel that in order to redefine the relationship that I have with computer technology, I need to reassess how I've been using it and currently understand its purpose - and not let it take over. I use computer technology and new media(s) so much, currently, that I have looked past just how effective it has been and focused on my over use of it. The new media that I've incorporated into my pedagogy has greatly improved the instructing that I do, as well as the new media that I'm using in my scholarship as a student. I think the lack of understanding that I'm dealing with, is how to keep it from seeping into my personal sphere.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Today...I had a moment. (Teching w/ Technology - Arola)
While I was reading Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key by Kathleen Yancey, the first sentence of her piece struck a chord inside of me that made me, once again, a believer in academia. In her piece, Kathleen states that "sometimes, you know, you have a moment," and today I most definitely did (297).
As my current scholarship has me researching the use of technology in the classroom and the pedagogy of the instructors as a result of the increased technology being brought and used in the class, I've found myself incorporating digital spaces such as facebook.com and prezi.com into my English 101 pedagogy to see how it plays out firsthand.
One of the requirements for my 101 class is for the students to add the facebook profile that I've designed specifically for the course, and to use the info in the profile to help them stay current with the movements of the course.
It was during the process of adding students to the course facebook profile that I knew I had my moment. One of my students wrote, "a class that uses facebook, the greatest thing ever." I was overjoyed, and really encouraged that the work I am currently doing is being understood the way I envisioned it to be - even if its only one student that picks up on it.
As my current scholarship has me researching the use of technology in the classroom and the pedagogy of the instructors as a result of the increased technology being brought and used in the class, I've found myself incorporating digital spaces such as facebook.com and prezi.com into my English 101 pedagogy to see how it plays out firsthand.
One of the requirements for my 101 class is for the students to add the facebook profile that I've designed specifically for the course, and to use the info in the profile to help them stay current with the movements of the course.
It was during the process of adding students to the course facebook profile that I knew I had my moment. One of my students wrote, "a class that uses facebook, the greatest thing ever." I was overjoyed, and really encouraged that the work I am currently doing is being understood the way I envisioned it to be - even if its only one student that picks up on it.
Monday, March 29, 2010
I sometimes feel as if I am supporting the "lazy" student
I knew, coming into my first year as an English 101 Instructor, that I would need to continually learn/find new ways to teach English 101. I knew that I would be "integrating digital and multimodal assignments into composition classes" (606) to assist in teaching writing as a process. I did not know, however, just how dependent current collegiate students, colleagues of mine, and even myself, are on multimodal forms of communication.
Where I once found it "cute" for my students to inquisitively ask about including shorthand among their papers, I now find it a little depressing that they would think to ask about it. If their interest for including such jargon was to strengthen, or prove, an assertion/claim relevant to their piece, then I would not have any qualms whatsoever with their use of shorthand. However, after asking my student(s) what purpose such an inclusion would have, their typical response was that "it would make writing easier because that is how they write the majority of the time." For example: thanks = thx, rly = really, obvsly = obviously, ect...
As I think of shorthand, and the new wave of technology that is ever so present in the classroom, I question whether or not I would be encouraging students to be less actively engaged in their education if I allowed the use of shorthand, and other devices making writing "easier" for the student. And with technology beginning to, if not already, dominating the classroom, I feel as if I am almost forced to implement the use of technology because of it's "ease" and convenience to the student, and even at times to academia. I was told to teach writing as a process, which I do not remember ever including the use of current/projected multimodal devices that students and "society" alike are using. But, now, the majority of the material I read, and am taught, seem to reiterate the "fact" that we need to continue our incorporation of technology because "we need to better understand the importance that students attach to composing, exchanging, and interpreting new and different kinds of texts that help them make sense of their experiences and lives - songs, and lyrics, videos, written essays illustrated with images, personal Web pages that include sound clips. We need to learn from their motivated efforts to communicate with each other for themselves and for others..." (Hesse 604)
As I continue to teach, and the reliance on technology continues to grow, I feel that it is simply a matter of time before multimodal teaching will be the norm. I can appreciate the use of multimodal devices, however, I also fear it. I sometimes feel as if I am supporting the "lazy" student by affirming that there "may" be websites which serve the same function I'm instructing them, but take a lot less time to do...I'll teach them about works cited/bibliography pages, and a member of the class with tell the class of a website which will do the work for them. I'm aware that this may not be the case of every type of multimodal device, and certainly not the outcome of them all, but I do feel that the use of these devices should be strictly monitored for their effectiveness.
While I read, and applaud, reports that state "11 percent of teens have a website and 27 percent a blog, with 65 percent using social networking sites" (604), I worry that the jargon created in these online communities will spill into the classroom and create a false sense of illiteracy.
Where I once found it "cute" for my students to inquisitively ask about including shorthand among their papers, I now find it a little depressing that they would think to ask about it. If their interest for including such jargon was to strengthen, or prove, an assertion/claim relevant to their piece, then I would not have any qualms whatsoever with their use of shorthand. However, after asking my student(s) what purpose such an inclusion would have, their typical response was that "it would make writing easier because that is how they write the majority of the time." For example: thanks = thx, rly = really, obvsly = obviously, ect...
As I think of shorthand, and the new wave of technology that is ever so present in the classroom, I question whether or not I would be encouraging students to be less actively engaged in their education if I allowed the use of shorthand, and other devices making writing "easier" for the student. And with technology beginning to, if not already, dominating the classroom, I feel as if I am almost forced to implement the use of technology because of it's "ease" and convenience to the student, and even at times to academia. I was told to teach writing as a process, which I do not remember ever including the use of current/projected multimodal devices that students and "society" alike are using. But, now, the majority of the material I read, and am taught, seem to reiterate the "fact" that we need to continue our incorporation of technology because "we need to better understand the importance that students attach to composing, exchanging, and interpreting new and different kinds of texts that help them make sense of their experiences and lives - songs, and lyrics, videos, written essays illustrated with images, personal Web pages that include sound clips. We need to learn from their motivated efforts to communicate with each other for themselves and for others..." (Hesse 604)
As I continue to teach, and the reliance on technology continues to grow, I feel that it is simply a matter of time before multimodal teaching will be the norm. I can appreciate the use of multimodal devices, however, I also fear it. I sometimes feel as if I am supporting the "lazy" student by affirming that there "may" be websites which serve the same function I'm instructing them, but take a lot less time to do...I'll teach them about works cited/bibliography pages, and a member of the class with tell the class of a website which will do the work for them. I'm aware that this may not be the case of every type of multimodal device, and certainly not the outcome of them all, but I do feel that the use of these devices should be strictly monitored for their effectiveness.
While I read, and applaud, reports that state "11 percent of teens have a website and 27 percent a blog, with 65 percent using social networking sites" (604), I worry that the jargon created in these online communities will spill into the classroom and create a false sense of illiteracy.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Constructing Perception? aka Not what one may think, but kind of...Pt. 1
Often in my childhood, my mother would reiterate the importance of first impressions and one's presentation of themselves, because of the considerable weight that one's audience seemingly places on the two during situational experiences. She would go on to tell me that just because I knew my capabilities and plan, it didn't mean that the rest of the world did. She wanted me consciously thinking about how I was allowing others to perceive who I was, and whether or not that was an accurate reflection as to who I am and my purpose. Unsure of how to more accurately convey her insight, I can only refer to this weeks reading(s), by Helmbrecht and Love, as it states "if rhetors want an audience to respond appropriately to their argument, they must first know whom they are addressing (153)," because if I 'know' who I am addressing, and tailor to them accordingly, I would have then given myself a modicum of power over that situation and the outcome. As I ponder on the conversations I had with my mother, during my youth, I can now say with confidence that she is the reason why I respectfully fear the different audiences that I interact with.
As BUST and Bitchin, two third-wave zines, use their assumed ethos to connect with their readership, I use my assumed ethos, perceived by my first impression/presentation, to connect with my audience. With a concentration on their audience's, these two zine magazines seek to "forge a feminist movement that both absorbs and reconfigures the progress of its feminist 'foremothers'" (Helmbrecht/Love 151). While keeping this goal in mind, zines, such as BUST and Bitchin are able to successfully shape the perception(s), of their work in feminism, by engaging in what is labeled as 'consubstantiality'. Consubstantiality is a term coined by Kenneth Burke, which asserts that "tailoring the content and structure to suit an audience's expectations, a rhetor can work collaboratively with the audience to shape an ethos appropriate for the rhetorical situation" (153)
So now I begin to think of zines, perception, rhetoric, my mother, and I begin to wonder if I have witnessed a student's rural literacy masked by my perception of them as a student. Have I been dooped by their intentional, or unintentional, use of consubstantiality? I wonder if, as a teacher, I have been naively ignorant as to believe that none of my students fit the criteria because they do not fit the "stereotype." Rural literacy immediately makes me think of highly illiterate characters which are displayed in today's media. Characters shown in such movies as Kalifornia, and Meet Joe Dirt. I know the extremities of these stereotypes, but I can only use these as examples as I think of how I can better tailor my classroom to those who, behind the facade, are victims of the literacy, or the lack thereof, in their rural environments.
In preparation for "that" student, I'm thinking that I might adhere, to one of Donehower proposed solutions, and "modernize" my classroom. I'll make a more conscious effort to actively integrate the use of computers, and other forms of "modernized" literacy, with hopes that a "seemingly literate" student will be able to assimilate accordingly without feeling as if they have to relocate to other areas that do not feel like "natural" learning environments.
Rural literacies, and zine magazines...I feel as if I'm beginning to make the make connection between the two, however, what I see, I am unable to name.
As BUST and Bitchin, two third-wave zines, use their assumed ethos to connect with their readership, I use my assumed ethos, perceived by my first impression/presentation, to connect with my audience. With a concentration on their audience's, these two zine magazines seek to "forge a feminist movement that both absorbs and reconfigures the progress of its feminist 'foremothers'" (Helmbrecht/Love 151). While keeping this goal in mind, zines, such as BUST and Bitchin are able to successfully shape the perception(s), of their work in feminism, by engaging in what is labeled as 'consubstantiality'. Consubstantiality is a term coined by Kenneth Burke, which asserts that "tailoring the content and structure to suit an audience's expectations, a rhetor can work collaboratively with the audience to shape an ethos appropriate for the rhetorical situation" (153)
So now I begin to think of zines, perception, rhetoric, my mother, and I begin to wonder if I have witnessed a student's rural literacy masked by my perception of them as a student. Have I been dooped by their intentional, or unintentional, use of consubstantiality? I wonder if, as a teacher, I have been naively ignorant as to believe that none of my students fit the criteria because they do not fit the "stereotype." Rural literacy immediately makes me think of highly illiterate characters which are displayed in today's media. Characters shown in such movies as Kalifornia, and Meet Joe Dirt. I know the extremities of these stereotypes, but I can only use these as examples as I think of how I can better tailor my classroom to those who, behind the facade, are victims of the literacy, or the lack thereof, in their rural environments.
In preparation for "that" student, I'm thinking that I might adhere, to one of Donehower proposed solutions, and "modernize" my classroom. I'll make a more conscious effort to actively integrate the use of computers, and other forms of "modernized" literacy, with hopes that a "seemingly literate" student will be able to assimilate accordingly without feeling as if they have to relocate to other areas that do not feel like "natural" learning environments.
Rural literacies, and zine magazines...I feel as if I'm beginning to make the make connection between the two, however, what I see, I am unable to name.
Monday, March 8, 2010
I write similar to others!!
Early on, in the beginning stages of creating my writing identity, I realized that every writer must have a certain way with words that will intrigue and continue captivating the interest of their audience. I became fascinated with humor and sarcasm because of the way I, myself, would react to these type of stylistic moves while reading the work of other authors. I enjoyed recognizing instances where these type of aspects were included, because after a while it became more than just enjoying their tone. I began to emulate similar writing characteristics because of the potential I saw in adapting certain elements in my own writing. As I have continued to research, and at times use sarcasm/humor, among other elements of writing, as a way of recognizing and emphasizing a point - the reading for this week associate this type of writing discourse with that of the Plateau Indians.
As the readings for this week will confirm, among "the rich variety of humor in Plateau Indian oratory and writing - from understatement, from sarcasm, to scatological references - [these] might be seen as another form of high affect that also involves an audience" (monroe 333). I, like the Plateau Indians, saw humor and sarcasm as a profitable affect when soliciting the initial attention or regrasping of attention of my audience. As seen in the majority of my blogg posts, the titles of the majority of them have some kind of humor and/or sarcasm included. And, as I thought of why I, and also the Plateau Indians, liked to include humor and sarcasm in our respective work - I found that in both cases it assists in "the effectiveness and eloquence of blending personal experience and scholarship" (monroe 338) For me, it helps tie in some of the informal to the formal, the public to the private, the 'known' and the unknown.' I feel that there needs to be a universal 'language' that can be associated and adapted by different discourse communities. This type of inclusion in ones writing also allows the author the ability to include their own insights and opinions on the work of others - as some "authors even mention the 'satiric summary' as a way for a writer to give her own spin on someones else's argument" (338).
I found it interesting, and somewhat comforting that know that some elements of my own, personal, writing are mirrored by others - even used to help define the writing discourse of an entire community. Thinking about it, it's really fascinating to think about how such seemingly minute aspects of one's writing can be the indicators of a lot more than most care to realize, or even understand. As I go back through my own writing from past and present, I'm curious to see what type of writing characteristics are indicative of American writers, and specifically those in my age demographic.
As the readings for this week will confirm, among "the rich variety of humor in Plateau Indian oratory and writing - from understatement, from sarcasm, to scatological references - [these] might be seen as another form of high affect that also involves an audience" (monroe 333). I, like the Plateau Indians, saw humor and sarcasm as a profitable affect when soliciting the initial attention or regrasping of attention of my audience. As seen in the majority of my blogg posts, the titles of the majority of them have some kind of humor and/or sarcasm included. And, as I thought of why I, and also the Plateau Indians, liked to include humor and sarcasm in our respective work - I found that in both cases it assists in "the effectiveness and eloquence of blending personal experience and scholarship" (monroe 338) For me, it helps tie in some of the informal to the formal, the public to the private, the 'known' and the unknown.' I feel that there needs to be a universal 'language' that can be associated and adapted by different discourse communities. This type of inclusion in ones writing also allows the author the ability to include their own insights and opinions on the work of others - as some "authors even mention the 'satiric summary' as a way for a writer to give her own spin on someones else's argument" (338).
I found it interesting, and somewhat comforting that know that some elements of my own, personal, writing are mirrored by others - even used to help define the writing discourse of an entire community. Thinking about it, it's really fascinating to think about how such seemingly minute aspects of one's writing can be the indicators of a lot more than most care to realize, or even understand. As I go back through my own writing from past and present, I'm curious to see what type of writing characteristics are indicative of American writers, and specifically those in my age demographic.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Once upon a time...
...a student, similar to Gloria Anzaldua, believed that books "saved [his] sanity," (Lunsford 45) and writing allowed him the opportunity to "put sentences together to form beautiful patterns for the purpose of making [his] ideas clear." (Swearingen 37)
As I read Lunsford's interview with Gloria Anzaldua, I was pleasantly surprised that Anzaldua and I share similar writing experiences - while I saw Swearingen's piece to be the outcome of my earlier experiences in the English field. Early on in my relationship with English, I too, believed that "there is no separation between life and writing," (Lunsford 45) because everything that I wrote seemed to take a toll on every aspect of my mind, body and soul. Sometimes it became "too hard on my body" (Lunsford 55) because I would "get all psyched up, and then I do the writing. I work four, five, six hours; and then I have to come off that. It is like a withdrawal. I have to leave that anger, leave that sadness, leave that compassion, whateverit is that I am feeling; I have to come off of that heightened , aware state." (Lunsford 55) I put such an exorbitant amount of energy into my writing because even after the assumed agony of writing, I gain my sanity. But, if at any time while I was writing I couldn't "find a voice, style, a point of view, then nothing [could] get written." (Lunsford 57)
I write because of the potential I see in it, and I study English with such fervor, because I appreciate the "layer upon layer of double meanings and allusions; parallelisms that link past and present, levels of meaning, and layers of meaning that are far more intricate than allegory, symbolism, parable, analogy, and similar double structures" (Swearingen 33) that language allows, which has also been seen in the study of Chinese rhetorical traditions. I feel an understanding of the above is crucial, because, "in order to make it in this society you have to be able to know the discipline, if it's teaching, if it's composition, if it's carpentry. Whatever field it is, you have to know your way around. You have to know how to wire the house before you can start being an innovative electrician." (Lunsford 60)
Even as I attempted to become a rhetorical carpenter, I agree with Swearingen that even as we attempt to learn it all, and understand everything - 'meanings get lost in translation.' Rhetorical situations are constantly changing and looking for a definitive. It seems that a never ending 'understanding' of language and it's rhetorical knowledge is essential in the understanding of contact zones. I feel confident in making the claim that language is defined differently by most people, which is why as a writer, now, I continue to push my body to its limits as I continue to adapt, and try to understand, different discourse and contact zones.
A goal I set long ago, during my earlies memories of writing was "to have a larger audience" (Lunsford 60), and studying contact zone rhetoric(s) will allow that to happen.
As I read Lunsford's interview with Gloria Anzaldua, I was pleasantly surprised that Anzaldua and I share similar writing experiences - while I saw Swearingen's piece to be the outcome of my earlier experiences in the English field. Early on in my relationship with English, I too, believed that "there is no separation between life and writing," (Lunsford 45) because everything that I wrote seemed to take a toll on every aspect of my mind, body and soul. Sometimes it became "too hard on my body" (Lunsford 55) because I would "get all psyched up, and then I do the writing. I work four, five, six hours; and then I have to come off that. It is like a withdrawal. I have to leave that anger, leave that sadness, leave that compassion, whateverit is that I am feeling; I have to come off of that heightened , aware state." (Lunsford 55) I put such an exorbitant amount of energy into my writing because even after the assumed agony of writing, I gain my sanity. But, if at any time while I was writing I couldn't "find a voice, style, a point of view, then nothing [could] get written." (Lunsford 57)
I write because of the potential I see in it, and I study English with such fervor, because I appreciate the "layer upon layer of double meanings and allusions; parallelisms that link past and present, levels of meaning, and layers of meaning that are far more intricate than allegory, symbolism, parable, analogy, and similar double structures" (Swearingen 33) that language allows, which has also been seen in the study of Chinese rhetorical traditions. I feel an understanding of the above is crucial, because, "in order to make it in this society you have to be able to know the discipline, if it's teaching, if it's composition, if it's carpentry. Whatever field it is, you have to know your way around. You have to know how to wire the house before you can start being an innovative electrician." (Lunsford 60)
Even as I attempted to become a rhetorical carpenter, I agree with Swearingen that even as we attempt to learn it all, and understand everything - 'meanings get lost in translation.' Rhetorical situations are constantly changing and looking for a definitive. It seems that a never ending 'understanding' of language and it's rhetorical knowledge is essential in the understanding of contact zones. I feel confident in making the claim that language is defined differently by most people, which is why as a writer, now, I continue to push my body to its limits as I continue to adapt, and try to understand, different discourse and contact zones.
A goal I set long ago, during my earlies memories of writing was "to have a larger audience" (Lunsford 60), and studying contact zone rhetoric(s) will allow that to happen.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Adapt or Dance?: An Inquiry of Foreign Discourse
Learning, and being able to use, new discourse(s) is, as Gee states, "how people build identities and activities and recognize identities and activities that others are building around them (20) - which is why I do not agree with Gee's use of the word 'dance' as he describes his concluding diagnosis of what a Discourse really is. 'Dancing' is used to describe Discourse as "a coordinated pattern of words, deeds, values, beliefs, symbols, tools, objects, times, and places in the here-now- as a performance that is recognizable as just such a coordination. Like a dance, the performance hear and now is never exactly the same..." (28) However, even as Gee describes this 'dance' that he feels people continually experience; is it really a matter of 'dancing,' or adapting?'
Gee uses the example of gang vernacular and jargon, with hopes of illustrating his idea of 'dancing' among other gang member, in order for the gang to accept or authenticate the person attempting to show his fluency in the gang's choice of discourse dance. Although I understand the point he is attempting to make, I question his understanding of the interaction that is happening. I argue that it's not a matter of 'dancing,' it's a matter of discourse adaptation. As the above quote by Gee states, discourse is made up of different variables which are all essential in displaying a certain level of understanding and recognition when using the new discourse - "recognition work" occurs "when they [people] engage in such work when they try to make visible to others (and to themselves, as well) who they are and what they are doing." (29)
As I consider my experience teaching English 101, and the way in which I have to adapt to the numerous discourses that my students bring to the classroom, I know that both the adaption of 'vernacular' and the 'technical variety of language' are crucial to the relationship that I continue to extablish with my students. If I were to treat learning new discourses as a dance, then I would feel as if I were putting on a show - when I should be adapting different discourses and proving my validity as an educator, and not a showman. And, like Gee so eloquently states, "there are no once and for all tests [dances] for who is a 'real' feminist, gang member, patriot, humanist, cutting-edge scientist, 'yuppie,' or 'regular' at the local bar" (25) - instead, we can only gauge one's discourse level by their adaptations of the said discourses learned.
Gee uses the example of gang vernacular and jargon, with hopes of illustrating his idea of 'dancing' among other gang member, in order for the gang to accept or authenticate the person attempting to show his fluency in the gang's choice of discourse dance. Although I understand the point he is attempting to make, I question his understanding of the interaction that is happening. I argue that it's not a matter of 'dancing,' it's a matter of discourse adaptation. As the above quote by Gee states, discourse is made up of different variables which are all essential in displaying a certain level of understanding and recognition when using the new discourse - "recognition work" occurs "when they [people] engage in such work when they try to make visible to others (and to themselves, as well) who they are and what they are doing." (29)
As I consider my experience teaching English 101, and the way in which I have to adapt to the numerous discourses that my students bring to the classroom, I know that both the adaption of 'vernacular' and the 'technical variety of language' are crucial to the relationship that I continue to extablish with my students. If I were to treat learning new discourses as a dance, then I would feel as if I were putting on a show - when I should be adapting different discourses and proving my validity as an educator, and not a showman. And, like Gee so eloquently states, "there are no once and for all tests [dances] for who is a 'real' feminist, gang member, patriot, humanist, cutting-edge scientist, 'yuppie,' or 'regular' at the local bar" (25) - instead, we can only gauge one's discourse level by their adaptations of the said discourses learned.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Online Communities and Mass Media are > Bedtime Stories?
Thinking back upon my childhood, and the ways in which I learned of the world around me, I immediately think of my mother, and the limitations that she would set on the amount of television that I watched. Due to my appreciation for literary works, and my current position in academia, I feel I can say with certainty that the story time I shared with my parents before bed was crucial to the success that I have today – as well as the strict limitations that my mom placed on my television intake. I can remember her telling me that reading would always make me think, whereas watching television would make me lazy because they do the thinking for you. I never would have thought that the amount of television that children watch a day would play such pivotal role in their literacy development. And yet, now that I am older and more ‘experienced,’ I am appalled at the amount, and type, of mass media consumption that we are subjecting our next generation to.
The generation I see being raised now appears to be much less interested in one-on-one time with their parents before bed, and more interested in an extra half hour on line or in front of the television; and because of this, it is in the best interest of our parents and educators to embrace this media/technology ‘preference’ and come up with new, and innovative, ways to educate through this new apparent preference. Children are being subjected to adult themes, with no explanations, at a very young age, and unless we take the time to refocus the education we give to the younger generations, the literacy levels will remain unbalanced and inadequately educational. However, the internet and other forms of mass media are introducing advanced reading levels and ‘much more academic like language than…first grade school texts’ (Gee 25). This is where I see the biggest issue. Where , and how, do we effectively prepare these young children in the homes for what the world has waiting for them, if the advanced material produced by media today is already in the home teaching them a type of discourse that goes unnoticed by the parents. Children are growing up on technology, making the parents the illiterate ones – and the ones that are then teaching the parents in the most up to date technology. I recently taught my mom to text message, and seeing the ‘joy’ in her face after she understood the basic concepts was an educational moment that I will not soon forget.
Then I think to when I have children, and the approach that I’ll be taking. I know that I will definitely be respecting the internet and multimedia devices, but I also will make sure that story time with pops does not get swept under the rug. Online communities are the communities largely responsible for raising children. I think it is just a matter of balance and humility of the resources that one uses, however, that goes the furthest with educating the youth of today.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Academic Discourses, Small Boats on a Big Sea, OR The Power of One?
While I read for this week and pondered the contents of the assigned reading(s), I was, once again, reminded of the students that I teach, and the pedagogy that my students are witnesses to. Late last night I was correcting a rough draft submitted by one of my students, and, quite frankly, I was shocked. I had a most difficult time believing that the undernourished writing assignment was the work of a perceived ‘better student.’ However, as I was reveling in my shock, I was reminded that English 101 should be taught as a process and not an assumed product that all students have. I should embrace the draft that was submitted, and not let it alter my perceptions of my student. This was also a re-affirmation that “whether by intent or default, we have centralized in our conversations a default view of what can be sanctioned as good writing, a view that has functioned ultimately to tether, rather than enable an evolving discussion” (Royster 24) I look forward to the task of assisting this student, and helping him increase his writing level and awareness.
Now that I am able to define myself as an educator, it is more important than ever that I am able to identify the different discourses provided to me by my students and create a bridge allowing them to write along the academic highway. I see evidence, daily, that “the academic community is changing, however, and becoming more diverse,” (Bizzell 2) which is why I feel that it is the power of one and not a small boat that will lead us to the change that Royster refers to. Instructors, and educators alike, all posses the ability to make impacts in academia through their individual research, and their interactions with their students, however, “the mandate is to [continually] search for ways to connect, for ways to engage masterfully.” (Royster 29)
I appreciate very much that current academic discourse is ‘the language of a human community,’ I would just like to continually find ways to maintain the bridge between myself and the different types of discourses I come into contact with. These 'mixed' forms of discourse, have me fascinated with attempting to understand my students through "their personal, social, institutional, and public locations" (Royster 26), and how they are all very telling of the student and their writing. I only hope that the power I posses will assist in stronger writing literacy for my students.Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Basic writing, issues of correctness, and academic discourses oh my!!
As I reflect upon Patricia Bizzell's pieces centering around the concepts of basic writing, issues of correctness, and academic discourses; I reflect on the first three weeks of the semester, and how I've seen these same aspects of composition in the courses I currently teach. As an English 101 instructor I aim to teach my students about the 'correctness' that is necessary to succeed in basic writing, however, I have already seen some resistance to the information I am presenting to the class, which I feel is indicative of multiple cultures and the schools of thought my class is made up of. I agree with Bizzell as she speaks of student learning, and states that their "difficulties are attributed primarily to clashes between their home world views and the academic world view, and their home discourse communities' resources are acknowledged." (Bizzell 5)
While recognizing that my students immediate surroundings are going to impact the participation and success of the class, "I conclude by asserting that to prepare students now for success in school, it may no longer be necessary to inculcate traditional academic discourse. Rather, what is needed is more help for students in experimenting with discourse forms that mix the academic and non-academic [or what I have called 'hybrid'] forms of academic discourse."(Basic 5) I try to consistently provide my students with both (non)academic material to show them how both are pertinent to their understanding of basic and advanced writing. I'm presented new material each day that would benefit my class, and 'if I am going to do my job of preparing students for success in college, then, I cannot ignore these new forms of academic discourse' (Hybrid 8)
The most challenging aspect I've encountered when teaching my students, is finding the balance between the different types of material, and the most effective ways of teaching them. It becomes difficult, because in a way, I feel like I have to take myself out of my current discourse mindset and attempt to be in that of my students. Yet, even as I put my emphasis on correctness at the basic writing level, I want my students to be able to simply apply the different elements I present to them in the classroom to a multitude of options outside of the classroom, because at the end of the semester 'student skill and application still will be important.' (Basic 11)
It is becoming inevitable that integrating alternative discourses into the classroom is only a semester away. "With the diverse population, slowly but surely, come diverse discourses from people's various home communities" (Hybrid 11), which is why there seems to be such a call to attention regarding this topic. I can only hope that I'll stay as current as possible to adequately feed the young and impressionable minds I see in academia.
While recognizing that my students immediate surroundings are going to impact the participation and success of the class, "I conclude by asserting that to prepare students now for success in school, it may no longer be necessary to inculcate traditional academic discourse. Rather, what is needed is more help for students in experimenting with discourse forms that mix the academic and non-academic [or what I have called 'hybrid'] forms of academic discourse."(Basic 5) I try to consistently provide my students with both (non)academic material to show them how both are pertinent to their understanding of basic and advanced writing. I'm presented new material each day that would benefit my class, and 'if I am going to do my job of preparing students for success in college, then, I cannot ignore these new forms of academic discourse' (Hybrid 8)
The most challenging aspect I've encountered when teaching my students, is finding the balance between the different types of material, and the most effective ways of teaching them. It becomes difficult, because in a way, I feel like I have to take myself out of my current discourse mindset and attempt to be in that of my students. Yet, even as I put my emphasis on correctness at the basic writing level, I want my students to be able to simply apply the different elements I present to them in the classroom to a multitude of options outside of the classroom, because at the end of the semester 'student skill and application still will be important.' (Basic 11)
It is becoming inevitable that integrating alternative discourses into the classroom is only a semester away. "With the diverse population, slowly but surely, come diverse discourses from people's various home communities" (Hybrid 11), which is why there seems to be such a call to attention regarding this topic. I can only hope that I'll stay as current as possible to adequately feed the young and impressionable minds I see in academia.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Contact Zones Among Us
Cultures relation to rhetoric, their influence on each other, what we can infer from cultural rhetoric, and what the fascination we have with Contact Zone Rhetoric(s) teaches us about our own society, are all things I consider when engaging this topic. I immediately think of ‘Cultural Rhetoric,’ which is the third major writing assignment for my 101 class, and feel encouraged that the readings for this week, affirmed with the information presented in our course, coincide with my initial understanding of Contact Zone Rhetoric.
As I instruct predominantly first year writers about ‘basic’ English composition, my understanding of rhetoric, and why a firm understanding of it is essential to one’s success – I become a little anxious as I think to our upcoming lesson on Cultural Rhetoric. It’s anxiety good and bad, encouraging and defeating. I know that recognizing one’s culture is crucial in achieving a certain modicum of success, however, I’m unsure as to how I can teach them how to recognize the importance of contrastive and cultural rhetorics when their (un)assumed privilege does not allow for further comprehension. Reading Robert Kaplan’s article, What in the World is Contrastive Rhetoric?, provided me with a possible solution to the anxiety I was having.
Professor Kaplan provides five questions that I hope will assist in their acknowledgment that the different ways in which people communicate (culturally) is vital in understanding the advances of the world. By allowing my students to ponder and discuss these questions among their peers, they will be introduced to various, yet equally important, schools of thought. The five questions Kaplan provides are as follows: (1) what may be discussed? (2) Who has the authority to speak/write? (3) What form(s) may the writing take? (4) What is Evidence? And, (5) what arrangement of evidence is likely to appeal to readers?
Subjecting my students to these questions should transition their thoughts about their assigned paper and begin discussing how our cultural backgrounds are much more than the color of our skin, and the place of our birth. Often times, culture, is instrumental in understanding the rhetoric of others. Their third paper should discuss whether or not they believe that we are our language; and if what we say is a fair reflection of our culture and who we are as people. This assignment, I believe, can be defined as an autoethnographic text; which Mary Louise Pratt defines in her article, Arts of the Contact Zone, as ‘a text in which people undertake to describe themselves in ways that engage with representations others have made of them.’ (585) I'm hoping that by completing such an assignment, my students will learn the importance of appreciating the differences we often take for granted.
I also found equally as fascinating Pratt’s assertion that Contact Zone Rhetoric does not discriminate in the places that it frequents. She refers back to an instance illustrating when her young son and his friend, ages 6 and 7, were recipients of a lesson in Contact Zone Rhetoric. Through her son’s interest in baseball cards, he ‘learned the history of American racism and the struggle against it; he saw the depression and two world wars from behind home plate’ (Pratt 583) As encouraging as this is, I also worry that this could also be indicative that media has too strong of a hold on cultural and societal outcomes.
Now, as I’m thinking about culture, I think back to the interculturality chart that was shown/discussed in class, and I begin to ponder about where my current cultural surrounding fits. Which is odd, because I feel like we, the people, should all be classified under the same cultural section, but we choose to be so violently different for the same reason that the word ‘power’ is made to be so apparently different in the interculturality chart - which is why this topic is so necessary. Each person is a contact zone having “multiple cultural identities. We are each dealt many culture cards—some we can change, others we cannot, and still others we can play at certain contexts. We may play a new card but our discourse community may not accept it or recognize it. Some cards are more powerful than others—they have more social currency or cultural capital than others, as Bourdieu would say; and some of us have more cards to play with. Still, we all play our hands strategically, weighing the odds with each turn.” (Monroe slide 4)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)