Hey guys,
So I get emails from Adobe Education Exchange and the Imageography was from the Dec. 2011 "newsletter." This link will take you to a Google doc with the document provided by Hannah Coale. Hope it helps!
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Teaching Philosophy-Alphabetic and Technologically manifested
Audience: Distance Students
As a Teacher:
As a student, I always preferred classes that were hands on and very light on the lecture, and I preferred professors who had high expectations but were human at the same time. I preferred them because I learned more in them. Though I didn’t know it at the time, the hands on style seems to be the most conducive to learning based on neurobiological research (Brain Rules). I therefore, as a teacher, try to make my own classes as hands-on as a writing course can be. My courses are student-centered, meaning that the needs of individual students are addressed and the course content and execution does not center on my own ideas about writing. We work on synthesizing (through course readings and activities) a definition of what it means to be a writer in the world today.
Views on Knowledge and Application in the Classroom:
I believe that what is acceptable as a communicative practice is socially constructed; however, verbal communication is something that can also be very individual (style, tone, etc). It involves taking and working through external information in order to make sense of the world from an individual perspective. So, overall, I try to find a balance between the social and the individual in the classroom in the work that both my students and I do.
I do this by giving students the opportunity to work individually and together; I give students ample opportunity to give me feedback on the direction of the course while I keep a teaching journal in order to reflect on what I think worked and didn’t work. For my students, I require peer review and personal reflection on those reviews in order to help keep this balance between social construction and the individual. The peer reviews give students feedback on their work, but by requiring a reflection on the reviews they received (by their classmates and myself) students are able to think about why the suggestions were made and whether or not they agree with them. Peer review and collaboration take place throughout the course, not just on major essay assignments.
In order to facilitate this continuous feedback, my classroom focuses on group workshops that allow students to help each other compose in ways that are effective rhetorically. I use discussions to make the class focused more on the students and their ideas as opposed to the teacher as the “holder of all knowledge.” Requiring reading responses that focus on what students think about what they read and why also reinforces the social constructivist and student-centered approach that I try to take in the classroom. I try to make the course cater to individual students, and this translates into one-on-one conferences to attend to individual student needs.
Student Assessment and Expectations:
I expect my students to give 100% effort to their course work. This effort translates into reading assignments carefully and closely, asking questions when they arise, and putting thought into every aspect of the coursework. In discussions and workshops, students are assessed based on: their ability to think critically about assigned topics and their ability to respond to classmates in a meaningful way. In drafts, I’m looking for a real effort to move toward communicating rhetorically. In the journals I expect to see honest thought and reflection on writings and on feedback received. Overall, these expectations and assessment criteria are geared toward a learning experience that emphasizes transferability to other writing situations and a creation of a definition of writing that is a balance between the individual and the larger group.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Teaching Philosophy Draft
Catrina Mitchum
Teaching with Technology
Teaching Philosophy-Teaching Writing
November 24, 2011
Audience: Distance Students
As a Teacher:
As a student, I always preferred classes that were hands on and very light on the lecture, and I preferred professors who had high expectations but were human at the same time. I preferred them because I learned more in them. Though I didn’t know it at the time, the hands on style seems to be the most conducive to learning based on neurobiological research (Brain Rules). I therefore, as a teacher, try to make my own classes as hands-on as a writing course can be. My courses are student-centered, meaning that the needs of individual students are addressed and the course content and execution does not center on my own ideas about writing. We work on synthesizing (through course readings and activities) a definition of what it means to be a writer in the world today.
Views on Knowledge and Application in the Classroom:
I believe that what is acceptable as a communicative practice is socially constructed; however, verbal communication is something that can also be very individual (style, tone, etc). It involves taking and working through external information in order to make sense of the world from an individual perspective. So, overall, I try to find a balance between the social and the individual in the classroom in the work that both my students and I do.
I do this by giving students the opportunity to work individually and together; I give students ample opportunity to give me feedback on the direction of the course while I keep a teaching journal in order to reflect on what I think worked and didn’t work. For my students, I require peer review and personal reflection on those reviews in order to help keep this balance between social construction and the individual. The peer reviews give students feedback on their work, but by requiring a reflection on the reviews they received (by their classmates and myself) students are able to think about why the suggestions were made and whether or not they agree with them. Peer review and collaboration take place throughout the course, not just on major essay assignments.
In order to facilitate this continuous feedback, my classroom focuses on group workshops that allow students to help each other compose in ways that are effective rhetorically. I use discussions to make the class focused more on the students and their ideas as opposed to the teacher as the “holder of all knowledge.” Requiring reading responses that focus on what students think about what they read and why also reinforces the social constructivist and student-centered approach that I try to take in the classroom. I try to make the course cater to individual students, and this translates into one-on-one conferences to attend to individual student needs.
Student Assessment and Expectations:
I expect my students to give 100% effort to their course work. This effort translates into reading assignments carefully and closely, asking questions when they arise, and putting thought into every aspect of the coursework. In discussions and workshops, students are assessed based on: their ability to think critically about assigned topics and their ability to respond to classmates in a meaningful way. In drafts, I’m looking for a real effort to move toward communicating rhetorically. In the journals I expect to see honest thought and reflection on writings and on feedback received. Overall, these expectations and assessment criteria are geared toward a learning experience that emphasizes transferability to other writing situations and a creation of a definition of writing that is a balance between the individual and the larger group.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
It wasn't me was it?
DeVoss, Danielle and Annette C. Rosati. "It wasn't me, was it?": Plagiarism and the Web." Computers in the Composition Classroom. Eds. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, and Elixabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2008: 151-164. Print.
The story that the author's open with about students being unsure of whether or not they plagiarized is one that I can relate to as it's a concern my students (especially at the for profit school I teach with) are very vocal about. In that particular Comp I course, that is canned, student were required to write an informative research paper on a topic that they were interested in. This meant they often knew little about what they were writing about. When these students submitted there work to the writing center (which was required in the course design), they often received comments about sources being weaved together. The most common question I was asked: how am I supposed to write an informative paper that I am learning about without relying so heavily on my sources.
I felt all the issues brought up (especially about new texts causing further issue) were still relevant. I particularly liked the quote from p. 159 in regard to a student plagiarizing the design of a website: "Did this student plagiarize? How does electronic publishing complicate our print-based assumptions about what plagiarism is and isn't? What is common practice on the Web? How do we separate code from design in online space? Design from content?" I think that while we do have CC, we're still navigating these issues.
I included this site because of our recent conversation about OWL's.
The story that the author's open with about students being unsure of whether or not they plagiarized is one that I can relate to as it's a concern my students (especially at the for profit school I teach with) are very vocal about. In that particular Comp I course, that is canned, student were required to write an informative research paper on a topic that they were interested in. This meant they often knew little about what they were writing about. When these students submitted there work to the writing center (which was required in the course design), they often received comments about sources being weaved together. The most common question I was asked: how am I supposed to write an informative paper that I am learning about without relying so heavily on my sources.
I felt all the issues brought up (especially about new texts causing further issue) were still relevant. I particularly liked the quote from p. 159 in regard to a student plagiarizing the design of a website: "Did this student plagiarize? How does electronic publishing complicate our print-based assumptions about what plagiarism is and isn't? What is common practice on the Web? How do we separate code from design in online space? Design from content?" I think that while we do have CC, we're still navigating these issues.
I included this site because of our recent conversation about OWL's.
Computers, Copyright and the Composition Classroom
Logie, John. "Champing at the Bits: Computers, Copyright, and the Composition Classroom." Computers in the Composition Classroom. Eds. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, and Elixabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2008: 135-150. Print.
Copyright and fair use have come to the forefront of the writing classroom with the advent of new technologies. While Logie's article was dated (1998), it's still very much relevant. Not only to writing, but in the expanding definition of composition for many in the field. Even with the fair use clause, there are issues. There have been instances where student work has been taken off you tube for using clips and images that were copyrighted (even though citations were provided). I think that the creative commons site was a good way to give "creators" control, but still allow use within certain limits.
This is the site dedicated to fair use.
Copyright and fair use have come to the forefront of the writing classroom with the advent of new technologies. While Logie's article was dated (1998), it's still very much relevant. Not only to writing, but in the expanding definition of composition for many in the field. Even with the fair use clause, there are issues. There have been instances where student work has been taken off you tube for using clips and images that were copyrighted (even though citations were provided). I think that the creative commons site was a good way to give "creators" control, but still allow use within certain limits.
This is the site dedicated to fair use.
Oral Presentation
In another course that I'm taking, I have to do a presentation on a major debate. I had created a class wiki (using Google Sites) for this class. Google Sites it's something I had never used before, but I played around with it to do what I needed it to do. After creating it, I created a video that showed my classmates how to go through and post what they needed to post. Between this experience, and my previous experience with my classmates and Prezi, I think that a major debate might be how much knowledge of technology do we need in order to use and teach it. There obviously are proponents who say "we don't need much if any," but then why are we not using them more often (outside of this class of course). I think where I need to go for that project is find sources that make that argument-the argument for knowing more about the technology I guess.
Prezi
I've convinced (thought it wasn't hard) a group I'm in for another class to use Prezi for a group presentation for the first time. It's interesting that when I asked if they wanted an instructional video or to click and learn and use me to trouble shoot, they opted to click and learn. It made me wonder if it's something all students would be comfortable with or if that was the case because the rest of my group members are concentrating in new media: they're not scared of it. I had another situation, this past week when creating our jigsaw, where I was helping my group members learn more about Prezi as we edited the work together. I walked them through a couple of things (showing and talking at the same time) and then they were able to do it themselves. Is it simply a difference in learning styles?
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Brain Rules Chapter 11 Notes
So this week, I tried making a comic. I used Pixton, and it was my first go with the website. Overall, it was incredibly easy and quick; however, also very limiting. I suppose there may have been more options, but if you select the Quickie option for a short comic then they give you the scene layout, the characters you can pick from and their positions on the screen. In addition, I had to categorize my comic, but it didn't fit into any of the categories they set out, which was frustrating. I could see this being used in the way that I did. To make a comment about what was read or to take quick notes on something to remember it. However, I think I would try looking at other free comic creators first.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Brain Rules Chapter 10
I used Google Draw in Google Docs this week. I've never used this feature before, but found that the simplicity was actually what I needed in order to create this cartoon. The problem I was running into with other programs was that I was limited to either pictures I had or whatever the program came with. None of the cartoon programs had the option drawing and making it a cartoon. I think this program could be useful in students not only creating mutlimodal projects, but doing so as a group (because of the group features of Google Docs). A problem that I did have with the program was it didn't have all the shapes I was looking for. I also had to photoshop a foam finger to make it work for this image.
Flash in FYC
Ellertson, Anthony. "Some Notes on Simulacra Machines, Flash in First-Year Composition, and Tactics in Spaces of Interruption." Computers in the Composition Classroom. Eds. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, and Elixabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2008: 482-484. Print.
I have to say that I love Flash, and I've seen first hand how using it can create a more complete vision or message. Here is flash video created in NMTP II by my classmates and I for Dr. Mourao (a lit prof at ODU). She had several pieces (video, personal essay, scholarly work, paintings) that fed into this concept of whiteness in Portuguese culture. We were able to centralize all her work so that the viewer or "reader" could understand the full concept. I think that the elements worked together to really create a complete argument.
I have to say that I love Flash, and I've seen first hand how using it can create a more complete vision or message. Here is flash video created in NMTP II by my classmates and I for Dr. Mourao (a lit prof at ODU). She had several pieces (video, personal essay, scholarly work, paintings) that fed into this concept of whiteness in Portuguese culture. We were able to centralize all her work so that the viewer or "reader" could understand the full concept. I think that the elements worked together to really create a complete argument.
Integrated Composition Pedagogy in Hypertext
Williams, Sean D. "Part 2: Toward and Integrated Composition Pedagogy in Hypertext." Computers in the Composition Classroom. Eds. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, and Elixabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2008: 469-481. Print.
Again, this reading comes at a time when I'm grappling with the concept of "literacy" in all its complexity. I'm not sure that I agree with defining these literacies that we have as simple skill sets. I do like that Williams addressed the issue of visual rhetoric and literacy in this article. Visual rhetoric as it's presented in FYC textbooks is a topic that I'm looking at in that same project for another class. I do agree that there needs to be an inclusive yet expansive way to approach composition. I've always thought that the medium used alters the message and so how it's presented (or delivered) will make a big impact on the message itself. Something else that I've found interesting is this idea of rhetorical velocity that's presented by Ridolfo and DeVoss in Kairos.
Again, this reading comes at a time when I'm grappling with the concept of "literacy" in all its complexity. I'm not sure that I agree with defining these literacies that we have as simple skill sets. I do like that Williams addressed the issue of visual rhetoric and literacy in this article. Visual rhetoric as it's presented in FYC textbooks is a topic that I'm looking at in that same project for another class. I do agree that there needs to be an inclusive yet expansive way to approach composition. I've always thought that the medium used alters the message and so how it's presented (or delivered) will make a big impact on the message itself. Something else that I've found interesting is this idea of rhetorical velocity that's presented by Ridolfo and DeVoss in Kairos.
Negative Spaces
Johnson-Eilola, Johndan. "Negative Spaces: From Production to Connection in Composition."Computers in the Composition Classroom. Eds. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, and Elixabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2008: 454-468. Print.
What's interesting is that this reading comes at a time when I needed it most. In another class, I'm working on a project that argues for the production of visual texts in order to have a complete understanding of visual rhetoric. However, the issue I've been having is with the word "production." I feel that production in the way that I mean does not align with product pedagogy, and this article has given me more food for thought as I struggle with examining the term production in that project. I do like the emphasis on the connection between texts and fragments. I think that times that I've learned the most is when I'm able to make connections (however loose at the time) between fragments of information (specifically in classes). This article specifically made me think of the idea of "remixing." And this website goes into remixing in a composition classroom. (And is a shout-out to Rowan-my alma mater).
What's interesting is that this reading comes at a time when I needed it most. In another class, I'm working on a project that argues for the production of visual texts in order to have a complete understanding of visual rhetoric. However, the issue I've been having is with the word "production." I feel that production in the way that I mean does not align with product pedagogy, and this article has given me more food for thought as I struggle with examining the term production in that project. I do like the emphasis on the connection between texts and fragments. I think that times that I've learned the most is when I'm able to make connections (however loose at the time) between fragments of information (specifically in classes). This article specifically made me think of the idea of "remixing." And this website goes into remixing in a composition classroom. (And is a shout-out to Rowan-my alma mater).
Monday, October 31, 2011
Multimodal Composition Ch. 8
Borton, Sonya C. and Brian Hout. "Responding and Assessing." Multimodal Composition: Resources for Teachers. Ed. Cynthia L. Selfe. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2007: 99-111. Print.
This chapter gave great advice and worksheets for rhetorically responding to and assessing student work. I particularly liked the emphasis on "composing self-consciously" (99) and using assessment as a tool to teach composition. I have my students keep a research journal in order to keep up on their progress, and I could definitely see having the benefit to a progress journal for mutlimodal assignments-especially for my online students. They don't have the benefit of me walking around and leaning over their shoulders to get feedback, so the journal would be one way to make that connection.
This page makes an argument for a traditional writing program rubric to be used in a multimodal composition assessment.
This chapter gave great advice and worksheets for rhetorically responding to and assessing student work. I particularly liked the emphasis on "composing self-consciously" (99) and using assessment as a tool to teach composition. I have my students keep a research journal in order to keep up on their progress, and I could definitely see having the benefit to a progress journal for mutlimodal assignments-especially for my online students. They don't have the benefit of me walking around and leaning over their shoulders to get feedback, so the journal would be one way to make that connection.
This page makes an argument for a traditional writing program rubric to be used in a multimodal composition assessment.
Brain Rules on TV
When I read the Brain Rules chapter this week, I thought of something I had seen on TV about "Ba" and "Va" over the summer. I can't remember what channel it was on, but the clip here is from the show that I saw.
Yancey: A New Assessment Design
Yancey, Kathleen Blake. "Looking for Sources of Coherence in a fragmented World: Notes toward a New Assessment Design."Computers in the Composition Classroom. Eds. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, and Elixabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2008: 293-307. Print.
In this article Yancey discusses assessment of digital compositions by considering the relationships between the parts as a coherent rhetorical work. This necessitates a broader definition of composition as well as a heuristic for consideration.
I liked that she includes a list of things to consider: What arrangements are possible? Who arranges? What is the intent? What is the fit between the intent and the effect? I think these are important questions regardless of the composition and that considering them will help us to address issues of validity in all types of compositions in turn.
I thought this slideshow was relevant.
In this article Yancey discusses assessment of digital compositions by considering the relationships between the parts as a coherent rhetorical work. This necessitates a broader definition of composition as well as a heuristic for consideration.
I liked that she includes a list of things to consider: What arrangements are possible? Who arranges? What is the intent? What is the fit between the intent and the effect? I think these are important questions regardless of the composition and that considering them will help us to address issues of validity in all types of compositions in turn.
I thought this slideshow was relevant.
Brain Rules Chapter 9 Notes
This week, I decided to play around with Prezi a bit more. I took a look at the samples provided a few weeks ago and made a master text type Prezi. I liked the three dimensional feel of the zooming in and out of words that I was able to create. Other than the obvious presentation work, something I liked about Prezi was the ability to share editing. I wonder how that would work all at the same time...
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Using Tech in any classroom...
So I've created a matrix for another class using Google sites. I ended up with Google sites because it was the only program I could really get to format a spread sheet type platform that could have files uploaded to it (without writing my own code). This isn't the first time that I've had a hard time finding a program that will let me do what I want to do and it made me think of the access issues we've been discussing in class. Is programming going to be the new literacy?
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Faculty Priorities Reconsidered Ch. 15
Rice, R. Eugene. "The Future of the Scholarly Work of Faculty." Faculty priorities reconsidered: Rewarding multiple forms of scholarship. Eds. K. O’Meara & E. R. Rice.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2005: 303-313.
Like: I liked that the proprietary schools were addressed as an issue, and I particularly liked the quote: "If we continue to take an incremental, additive approach to change we may create a career that is increasingly less viable and inviting" (306). I therefore also liked the solution of transformational change. I also liked that the issue of SoTL trying to be an independent form of scholarship was brought up. One think I particularly liked about the Boyer piece we read was the integration of all the types of scholarship, but much of what we've seen so far has strayed away from each type influencing the others.
Confusion: None.
More: I would actually like to learn more about how proprietary schools fit into all this. I currently work at one, and dislike it because the course is "canned" and doesn't reflect what I think is important in the comp classroom.
Like: I liked that the proprietary schools were addressed as an issue, and I particularly liked the quote: "If we continue to take an incremental, additive approach to change we may create a career that is increasingly less viable and inviting" (306). I therefore also liked the solution of transformational change. I also liked that the issue of SoTL trying to be an independent form of scholarship was brought up. One think I particularly liked about the Boyer piece we read was the integration of all the types of scholarship, but much of what we've seen so far has strayed away from each type influencing the others.
Confusion: None.
More: I would actually like to learn more about how proprietary schools fit into all this. I currently work at one, and dislike it because the course is "canned" and doesn't reflect what I think is important in the comp classroom.
Faculty Priorities Reconsidered Ch. 13
O'Meara, KerryAnn. "Effects of Encouraging Multiple Forms of Scholarship Nationwide and Across Institutional Types." Faculty priorities reconsidered: Rewarding multiple forms of scholarship. Eds. K. O’Meara & E. R. Rice.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2005: 255-289.
Like: I liked that the authors addressed different types of institutions (though I was disappointed that the 2-year wasn't in there), and that they gave suggestions for the issues each type faced in light of expanding scholarship. While it's not something I like, I'm glad they addressed it and I found it interesting that formal implementation of broad definition of scholarship has created strain on faculty and reward systems.
Confusion: None.
More: I suppose I'll be asking for more about this constantly: I'm specifically interested in the 2-year institution in comparison to the 4-year types discussed here.
Like: I liked that the authors addressed different types of institutions (though I was disappointed that the 2-year wasn't in there), and that they gave suggestions for the issues each type faced in light of expanding scholarship. While it's not something I like, I'm glad they addressed it and I found it interesting that formal implementation of broad definition of scholarship has created strain on faculty and reward systems.
Confusion: None.
More: I suppose I'll be asking for more about this constantly: I'm specifically interested in the 2-year institution in comparison to the 4-year types discussed here.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Brain Rules Chapter 8 Notes
For this week, I took notes with blabberize. It was a lot of fun. I used my own photo, situated the mouth (I actually had to go all the way through to see how the lines coordinated with the way the mouth would open), recorded what I wanted to say and voila. I did take some time playing with recording on my computer-I used the voices that come with my Mac and tried to find one that was easy to understand, but also a bit fun. The best ones of course were hard to understand. I can see this being useful in the classroom as an introduction activity or a presentation that will allow students that are shy to "break the ice." The biggest downfall is that you can only have 30 seconds of audio. Enjoy!
Web Research and Genres
Sidler, Michelle. "Web Research and Genres in Online Databases: When the Glossy Page Disappears." Computers in the Composition Classroom. Eds. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, and Elixabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2008: 350-365. Print.
In this article, Sidler discusses the spatial orientation and cognitive mapping of the web in order to help students do research. She uses the metaphor of the neighborhoods in a city to explain the navigation and types of sources out there. She argues that the physical space of research has changed. Many of the cues and clues of print text don't exist database texts, and students will also come across flashy websites with no content. Therefore, we need to teach them now to navigate this new physical area of research.
I liked that Sidler brought up issues of physicality and specifically focused on the magazine. I've had students think that just become an article is in a database that it comes from a peer reviewed journal. They associate straight text without "flair" with academia.
I'm not trying to sell these, but it made me wonder how it has/will change the physicality of research because it is certainly fluid (as Sidler says).
In this article, Sidler discusses the spatial orientation and cognitive mapping of the web in order to help students do research. She uses the metaphor of the neighborhoods in a city to explain the navigation and types of sources out there. She argues that the physical space of research has changed. Many of the cues and clues of print text don't exist database texts, and students will also come across flashy websites with no content. Therefore, we need to teach them now to navigate this new physical area of research.
I liked that Sidler brought up issues of physicality and specifically focused on the magazine. I've had students think that just become an article is in a database that it comes from a peer reviewed journal. They associate straight text without "flair" with academia.
I'm not trying to sell these, but it made me wonder how it has/will change the physicality of research because it is certainly fluid (as Sidler says).
Web Literacy Ch. 21
Sorapure, Madeleine, Pamela Inglesby, and George Yatchisin. "Web Literacy: Challenges and Opportunities for Research in a New Medium." Computers in the Composition Classroom. Eds. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, and Elixabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2008: 333-349. Print.
This article discusses web literacy and the student. They argue for a more comprehensive evaluative criteria for the web because not only are we currently use print evaluation as a basis for web evaluation, but also that practice does not paint a clear picture of truly evaluating and understanding what the web has to offer (such as interactivity, visual images, etc.). The article supports the idea that the web should be used in the classroom as a rhetorical tool and should be allowed in researched projects; however, we first need to teach students how to use it.
I liked that this article addressed an issue we still have today, and it made me wonder why we still have this issue. Academia is still wary of the online source and students are still unaware of how they should evaluate the source. I often get "well it looks credible because it looks like a professional site."
This site has five criteria for evaluation, and this one gives a general overview of evaluating websites.
This article discusses web literacy and the student. They argue for a more comprehensive evaluative criteria for the web because not only are we currently use print evaluation as a basis for web evaluation, but also that practice does not paint a clear picture of truly evaluating and understanding what the web has to offer (such as interactivity, visual images, etc.). The article supports the idea that the web should be used in the classroom as a rhetorical tool and should be allowed in researched projects; however, we first need to teach students how to use it.
I liked that this article addressed an issue we still have today, and it made me wonder why we still have this issue. Academia is still wary of the online source and students are still unaware of how they should evaluate the source. I often get "well it looks credible because it looks like a professional site."
This site has five criteria for evaluation, and this one gives a general overview of evaluating websites.
The Computer and the Inexperienced Writer
Hult, Christine A. "The Computer and the Inexperienced Writer." Computers in the Composition Classroom. Eds. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, and Elixabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2008: 326-332. Print.
This article is about the ways students are using computers to write. A problem that students have had with revision is that they change out words, etc. instead of working on content issues, organization, etc. Hult argues that while the computer can make the revising process easier, students are currently having the same problem: they're not addressing larger order concerns. She cautions that the computer can't teach students how to write, but they can be useful tools for the process.
What's sad about this article is it's still the case. I have students who become almost angry with me when I make them focus on revisions other than word choice, and the fact that revision is not simply changing words around is shocking to at least half the class. It makes me wonder how they made it through all those years of school without being taught revision. This article also reiterates something I've said before: bad pedagogy is bad pedagogy whether you use technology or not. This seems to be one of the biggest issues in many of the readings we've come across so far.
What I thought was interesting about this video was it's connection to some of the other articles this week. Specifically when she suggests printing the essay out, marking it up with a red pen, and then going back to the computer.
This article is about the ways students are using computers to write. A problem that students have had with revision is that they change out words, etc. instead of working on content issues, organization, etc. Hult argues that while the computer can make the revising process easier, students are currently having the same problem: they're not addressing larger order concerns. She cautions that the computer can't teach students how to write, but they can be useful tools for the process.
What's sad about this article is it's still the case. I have students who become almost angry with me when I make them focus on revisions other than word choice, and the fact that revision is not simply changing words around is shocking to at least half the class. It makes me wonder how they made it through all those years of school without being taught revision. This article also reiterates something I've said before: bad pedagogy is bad pedagogy whether you use technology or not. This seems to be one of the biggest issues in many of the readings we've come across so far.
What I thought was interesting about this video was it's connection to some of the other articles this week. Specifically when she suggests printing the essay out, marking it up with a red pen, and then going back to the computer.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
MC Activities #2
For the final project, I'll be designing a course I'm teaching in the Spring. I'll be teaching Eng112 online with TCC. I've taught this course before, but with a different campus, so the required books are different. However, I tend to throw the book into my course design as a supplement as opposed to a focus; therefore, I do plan to put in a visual argument (something I'm doing this semester as well). I don't know exactly what I want to change yet because I do want to see how the students do with it this semester (I'm getting them in this week). However, I do see being able to use many of the suggestions made in the MC chapters not only in regard to assignment design, but in issues of access for my online students. They don't all have cameras on their computers, they don't all have microphones on their computer. I'm coming across the issue of: how much can I really require them to have? This semester, I satisfied this issue by allowing students to create a "hard" assignment (posterboard, etc.) then take a photo and attach it-they all seem to have camera phones :)
Reflection on Classmate Responses
Overall, engaging with my classmates helped me to make better connections and forced me to synthesize what I read. Having to respond "with" another chapter made a difference in this I think. I started filling in solutions for problems I found in each chapter. In fact, doing this "group" work did allow each of us to bring something different to the conversation and help each other make the connections as well.
Links to the blogs I responded to:
Amanda's Ch. 2
Theresa's Ch. 3
Sarah's Ch. 4
Dione Ch. 5
Beth's Ch. 7
Links to the blogs I responded to:
Amanda's Ch. 2
Theresa's Ch. 3
Sarah's Ch. 4
Dione Ch. 5
Beth's Ch. 7
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Faculty Priorities Reconsidered Ch. 3
Diamond, Robert M., Kenneth J. Zahorski, and J. G. Gaff. "Issues of implementation." Faculty priorities reconsidered: Rewarding multiple forms of scholarship. Eds. K. O’Meara & E. R. Rice.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2005: 25-43.
Likes: I particularly liked Diamond's statements about making sure that there is a proper reward system for faculty, and the emphasis placed on support. I also liked that they all addressed the real struggles faced in breaking away from "old" definitions of scholarship and embracing new ones. I particularly liked Zahorski's emphasis on the fact that everyone was willing to embrace the theory, but implementation was a whole other ball game. Finally, I like that he ended with a list of "lessons learned" from the experience. I liked Gaff's four reflection questions at the end in particular-especially the focus on under represented groups in this discussion of defining and implementing scholarship. Overall, I thought that this chapter gave a good look into why Boyer's "scholarships" are more difficult to implement than first though.
Confusion: None.
More Info: Reading about how these schools tried to expand definitions of scholarship and implement change of course made me think about where I work: the community college. Was this movement trying to take place there as well?
Likes: I particularly liked Diamond's statements about making sure that there is a proper reward system for faculty, and the emphasis placed on support. I also liked that they all addressed the real struggles faced in breaking away from "old" definitions of scholarship and embracing new ones. I particularly liked Zahorski's emphasis on the fact that everyone was willing to embrace the theory, but implementation was a whole other ball game. Finally, I like that he ended with a list of "lessons learned" from the experience. I liked Gaff's four reflection questions at the end in particular-especially the focus on under represented groups in this discussion of defining and implementing scholarship. Overall, I thought that this chapter gave a good look into why Boyer's "scholarships" are more difficult to implement than first though.
Confusion: None.
More Info: Reading about how these schools tried to expand definitions of scholarship and implement change of course made me think about where I work: the community college. Was this movement trying to take place there as well?
Multimodal Composition Ch. 5
Keller, Daniel. "Thinking Rhetorically." Multimodal Composition: Resources for Teachers. Ed. Cynthia L. Selfe. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2007: 49-63. Print.
This author raises some very important questions in regard to the rhetoric of multimodal composition and teachers ability to teach this type of composing rhetorically. In considering the application of rhetoric to these types of compositions, it is suggested that exploring more types of texts (alphabetic, aural and visual), we can help our students learn and engage in these 21st century literacies at a level beyond "learning the newest technology."
I like the bridge that Keller built between rhetorical theory and multimodal compositions because I do agree that the medium or modality that you use can in fact be it's own appeal. That the delivery of these compositions has become more intertwined with the invention than texts before. I think it is important for students to learn about the communities and conversations that they're hoping to participate in with these compositions.
This author raises some very important questions in regard to the rhetoric of multimodal composition and teachers ability to teach this type of composing rhetorically. In considering the application of rhetoric to these types of compositions, it is suggested that exploring more types of texts (alphabetic, aural and visual), we can help our students learn and engage in these 21st century literacies at a level beyond "learning the newest technology."
I like the bridge that Keller built between rhetorical theory and multimodal compositions because I do agree that the medium or modality that you use can in fact be it's own appeal. That the delivery of these compositions has become more intertwined with the invention than texts before. I think it is important for students to learn about the communities and conversations that they're hoping to participate in with these compositions.
Multimodal Composition Ch. 3
Hess, Mickey. "Composing Multimodal Assignments." Multimodal Composition: Resources for Teachers. Ed. Cynthia L. Selfe. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2007: 29-37. Print.
The author supports open ended assignments for all composing, but especially for multimodal composing as it allows students to be more productive in thinking about the how and why of their projects. Theory, structure and choice, and circulation are the three pedagogical areas that the author says all teachers who compose open ended assignments need to address. He suggests revising and revitalizing theories of composition, and in turn keeping in mind that these multimodal assignments need to function within existing pedagogy. The author examines rhetorical canons as evidence and support for multimodal assignments: allow students to use all available means. The majority of the chapter focuses on a sample assignment that allows for different modalities, group work, exploration and reflection. They also encourage faculty to create their own multimodal compositions in order to offer tips for success. Hess also argues that circulation is necessary in considering assignment design because multimodal assignments allow for a wider range of delivery. At the end of the chapter a to do list is offered that suggests making a timeline, devoting time to the tech side, inviting specialists into the classroom, design with peer response in mind, remind students to incorporate writing in this composing process, and help students engage in research.
I liked the open-ended assignment suggestions as well as the emphasis on using the modalities that best suit what you're trying to say. It felt like a bit of a how to, but like the previous chapter, I think it's something that is necessary at this point in the research/scholarship.
I particularly like the emphasis on this site being a Web 2.0 toolkit.
Multimodal Composition Ch. 2
Selfe, Cynthia, Stephanie Owen Fleischer and Susan Wright. "Words, Audio, and Video: Composing and the Processes of Production." Multimodal Composition: Resources for Teachers. Ed. Cynthia L. Selfe. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2007: 13-28. Print.
In this chapter, the authors focus on giving outlines and explanations for composing with words, sound and video. They examine the challenges of teaching with audio and video, and then provide to sample assignments that focus on multimodal composition. Finally, they focus on the "how" of these types of assignments by going through the hardware, software and additional equipment needed in order for students to do these assignments and then share them.
I particularly liked the focus of not only giving instructions an avenue to take, but explaining how to get there. We often see theories about what we should be doing without the examination of how to put the theory into practice. Between the assignments, the evaluation sheets, the examination of possible issues and the necessary equipment, they do a nice job of preparing a teacher that has never done this before, but also giving the teacher who has some multimodal experience new ideas or direction. I like that the assignments tended to focus on literacy. It reminded me of Downs and Wardle's argument for us to have students learn about writing in these writing classes we teach.
While not directly related to teaching, this website is a dictionary for terminology used in film video and audio.
In this chapter, the authors focus on giving outlines and explanations for composing with words, sound and video. They examine the challenges of teaching with audio and video, and then provide to sample assignments that focus on multimodal composition. Finally, they focus on the "how" of these types of assignments by going through the hardware, software and additional equipment needed in order for students to do these assignments and then share them.
I particularly liked the focus of not only giving instructions an avenue to take, but explaining how to get there. We often see theories about what we should be doing without the examination of how to put the theory into practice. Between the assignments, the evaluation sheets, the examination of possible issues and the necessary equipment, they do a nice job of preparing a teacher that has never done this before, but also giving the teacher who has some multimodal experience new ideas or direction. I like that the assignments tended to focus on literacy. It reminded me of Downs and Wardle's argument for us to have students learn about writing in these writing classes we teach.
While not directly related to teaching, this website is a dictionary for terminology used in film video and audio.
Brain Rules Chapter 7
So this week I used Glogster, and not only do I like it a lot, but I wish I had more time to play. I feel like you could get lost in all the options they give to you. Something I didn't like was the small button that's given for audio files, and the lack of customization for that feature along with the inability to search for videos and things directly from the program (which some of the others have allowed). Overall, I can see this being used in many different ways from narratives, to research projects. I think I used this during a good week: just as we're really getting into the thick of multimodal composition.
http://trinamitchum.glogster.com/brain-rules-ch-7/
http://trinamitchum.glogster.com/brain-rules-ch-7/
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
English Studies in the Scholarship of Teaching
Salvatori, Mariolina Rizzi and Patricia Donahue. "English Studies in the Scholarship of Teaching." Disciplinary Styles in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Exploring Common Ground. Eds. Mary Taylor Huber and Sherwyn P. Moreale. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2002:69-86. Print.
Likes: I like that the authors situated the issues that SoTL come up against both within and parallell to English Studies. Scholar vs. Teacher has been an issue in the field since composition became a course in Harvard and generalist became a dirty word. I also like that interdisciplinary issues of English Studies itself were discussed as it directly relates to the larger interdisciplinary context as well. I also particularly liked the list on page 75. I suppose that the necessity to be both a scholar and a teacher and that they should not be binaries was beat into my well in my MA program because I simply thought it was par for the course.
Confusion:None
More Information: The connections between English Studies and SoTL.
Likes: I like that the authors situated the issues that SoTL come up against both within and parallell to English Studies. Scholar vs. Teacher has been an issue in the field since composition became a course in Harvard and generalist became a dirty word. I also like that interdisciplinary issues of English Studies itself were discussed as it directly relates to the larger interdisciplinary context as well. I also particularly liked the list on page 75. I suppose that the necessity to be both a scholar and a teacher and that they should not be binaries was beat into my well in my MA program because I simply thought it was par for the course.
Confusion:None
More Information: The connections between English Studies and SoTL.
Disciplinary Styles in SoT
Huber, Mary Taylor. "Disciplinary Styles in the Scholarship of Teaching: Reflections on the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning." Disciplinary Styles in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Exploring Common Ground. Eds. Mary Taylor Huber and Sherwyn P. Moreale. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2002:25-43. Print.
Likes: I liked the explanation of the emphasis and distinction of interdisciplinary work. I specifically like the hammer and nails analogy because interdisciplinary work is not about one taking over the others (an issues we're dealing with in English Studies), but real integration of methodologies. I've often wondered why disciplines don't talk more and why certain types of research can't simply be valued for offering different types of insights.
Confusion: None.
More Information: Reading this made me more interested in interdisciplinary work in research methodology. I would like to see where it's been done successfully.
Likes: I liked the explanation of the emphasis and distinction of interdisciplinary work. I specifically like the hammer and nails analogy because interdisciplinary work is not about one taking over the others (an issues we're dealing with in English Studies), but real integration of methodologies. I've often wondered why disciplines don't talk more and why certain types of research can't simply be valued for offering different types of insights.
Confusion: None.
More Information: Reading this made me more interested in interdisciplinary work in research methodology. I would like to see where it's been done successfully.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Multimodal Composition Ch. 13
Cooper, Marilyn, M. "Learning Digital Literacies." Multimodal Composition: Resources for Teachers. Ed. Cynthia L. Selfe. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2007: 181-186. Print.
This article started with the importance of paying attention to digital literacy. The author gave a summary of what digital literacy is in addition to discussing its importance. Following this, the author gives five strategies for teaching digital literacy. These strategies include: teaching the context of the technology, giving adequate motivation to learn it, giving enough time for learning and doing a good job, providing enough assistance, and providing opportunities to learn and problem solve with classmates. Overall, her argument is that these skills are essential to social practices and that it's not just about keeping up with the most recent technology.
This article came at an interesting time-I was researching digital literacy last week for another class. Some of the interesting information that I found was that many define it differently; however, at this point, many do agree it's more than just learning how to work a technology. Especially in a Web 2.0 world. Specifically, a particular article discussed digital literacy as directly related to a historical literacy (literacy practices throughout a lifetime). On the other hand, another article that I read last week suggested that the new digital literacy is going to necessitate programming.
I'm linking to this blog because I found the image to be funny. It came up in a Google search.
This article started with the importance of paying attention to digital literacy. The author gave a summary of what digital literacy is in addition to discussing its importance. Following this, the author gives five strategies for teaching digital literacy. These strategies include: teaching the context of the technology, giving adequate motivation to learn it, giving enough time for learning and doing a good job, providing enough assistance, and providing opportunities to learn and problem solve with classmates. Overall, her argument is that these skills are essential to social practices and that it's not just about keeping up with the most recent technology.
This article came at an interesting time-I was researching digital literacy last week for another class. Some of the interesting information that I found was that many define it differently; however, at this point, many do agree it's more than just learning how to work a technology. Especially in a Web 2.0 world. Specifically, a particular article discussed digital literacy as directly related to a historical literacy (literacy practices throughout a lifetime). On the other hand, another article that I read last week suggested that the new digital literacy is going to necessitate programming.
I'm linking to this blog because I found the image to be funny. It came up in a Google search.
Multimodal Composition Ch. 1
Takayoshi, Pamela, Cynthia L. Selfe. "Thinking about Modality." Multimodal Composition: Resources for Teachers. Ed. Cynthia L. Selfe. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2007: 1-12. Print.
The first chapter of this book explains what multimodality is and why its necessary for the current and future composition classroom. There is an emphasis put on mulimodal composition as independent from digital composition: you don't need technology in order to create multimodal compositions. Just as Selfe has previously argued, we need to "pay attention" to multimodal composing. The chapter then discusses the reasons for this attention included the increasing necessity to be able to both read and produce these texts, expanding the definition of composition, the emphasis of the authoring of these compositions as engaging, the important of rhetoric, and the connection between this type of composing and valued pedagogical goals. This discussion is followed by a list and discussion of reasonable concerns related to both technology and multi-modality.
I particularly like the emphasis on not needing technology to be multi-modal. In one of my courses I require a visual argument with the understanding that everyone is "tech savvy." I allow my students to create a "hard copy" of this argument and either take a photo or scan it in. This allows them to be creative in whatever way they are comfortable, but still create something they can turn in in an online course. I also liked that we're reading this book I suppose because of my surprised with the article in CCC.
The first chapter of this book explains what multimodality is and why its necessary for the current and future composition classroom. There is an emphasis put on mulimodal composition as independent from digital composition: you don't need technology in order to create multimodal compositions. Just as Selfe has previously argued, we need to "pay attention" to multimodal composing. The chapter then discusses the reasons for this attention included the increasing necessity to be able to both read and produce these texts, expanding the definition of composition, the emphasis of the authoring of these compositions as engaging, the important of rhetoric, and the connection between this type of composing and valued pedagogical goals. This discussion is followed by a list and discussion of reasonable concerns related to both technology and multi-modality.
I particularly like the emphasis on not needing technology to be multi-modal. In one of my courses I require a visual argument with the understanding that everyone is "tech savvy." I allow my students to create a "hard copy" of this argument and either take a photo or scan it in. This allows them to be creative in whatever way they are comfortable, but still create something they can turn in in an online course. I also liked that we're reading this book I suppose because of my surprised with the article in CCC.
Palmquist, et al. Contrasts: Teaching and Learning about Wriitng in Traditional and Computer Classrooms
Palmquist, Mike, Kate Kiefer, James Hartvigsen, and Barbara Goodlew. "Contrasts: Teaching and Learning about Writing in Traditional and Computer Classrooms." Computers in the Composition Classroom. Eds. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, and Elixabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2008: 251-270. Print.
The article explores the pedagogical practices of teachers that teach writing classes in both a "traditional" classroom and a computer classroom. The authors set out to discuss the differences between the classes. They look at teaching strategies, class preparation, teacher attitudes toward both types of teaching situations, interactions between all parties involved (student to teacher, student to student), students attitudes toward writing and student writing performance. They claim that there is a continuum of change: teachers take what works in one classroom (particularly the computer classrooms) and integrate it into other settings. Specifically, the teachers in this study took their roles of facilitator in the computer classroom and worked to recreate this in the traditional classroom. The authors propose that the computer classrooms enable the building of skills that typically don't receive attention in the traditional classroom that centers around grammar and mechanics. However, the use of the technology itself is highly dependent on teacher comfort level.
In the beginning of the article, I was surprised that the traditional classroom teachers were still using a teacher centric model. Later, it was stated that the reason was because students in the class were resistant to doing the in class writing and group work. I suppose I was surprised because my experience has been the opposite. I've always had a positive response from students when having them write in the classroom without computers. Then I looked at the original date and thought maybe it had something to do with the date of publication. I wonder if the computer had already influenced the teaching of teachers by the time I took my Teaching College Comp course.
Thought this was interesting:
The article explores the pedagogical practices of teachers that teach writing classes in both a "traditional" classroom and a computer classroom. The authors set out to discuss the differences between the classes. They look at teaching strategies, class preparation, teacher attitudes toward both types of teaching situations, interactions between all parties involved (student to teacher, student to student), students attitudes toward writing and student writing performance. They claim that there is a continuum of change: teachers take what works in one classroom (particularly the computer classrooms) and integrate it into other settings. Specifically, the teachers in this study took their roles of facilitator in the computer classroom and worked to recreate this in the traditional classroom. The authors propose that the computer classrooms enable the building of skills that typically don't receive attention in the traditional classroom that centers around grammar and mechanics. However, the use of the technology itself is highly dependent on teacher comfort level.
In the beginning of the article, I was surprised that the traditional classroom teachers were still using a teacher centric model. Later, it was stated that the reason was because students in the class were resistant to doing the in class writing and group work. I suppose I was surprised because my experience has been the opposite. I've always had a positive response from students when having them write in the classroom without computers. Then I looked at the original date and thought maybe it had something to do with the date of publication. I wonder if the computer had already influenced the teaching of teachers by the time I took my Teaching College Comp course.
Thought this was interesting:
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Web 2.0 and New Literacies
Web 2.0 technologies are platforms for what has been called a participatory culture. This is reflected in the provided quote, but many of the binaries in the quote are not new issues, ways of communicating or ways of knowing. In addition, many of the skills necessary to participate are ones that are not new: reading, writing, speaking, filming, etc. However, I do think that in order to become a part of this culture and participate in Web 2.0 technologies, we'll need to learn not only how to be a part of a conversation in combining these "old" literacies, but also learn the skills necessary to go from one new technology to the other "seamlessly." By that, I mean have a set of "this is what I need to to do in order to learn this technology right here right now." This is what we've been doing in this class. Jumping from new technology to new technology (many of them have been participatory) with a plan or an idea of how to get started.
Presentation Reflection
Our presentation set for 9/28/11 was to focus on the ECAR Study of Undergraduate Student and Information Technology 2010 and The Horizon Report 2011. Beth and I met on Skype Video Chat to discuss what we thought we should cover and how we should cover it during our time as discussion leaders. We ended up going into areas in the reports that we thought were interesting when we were reading to develop discussion questions. This seemed to be the most effective way to approach it simply because of the vast amount of information in both of the studies. We tried to make sure that the questions we were asking led to discussion of access (the current issue we're discussing) and thinking technology issues and usage in the classroom. We thought it was important to connect our experiences with technology to what is being said about undergrad experiences and to kind of see all that in action. This all led to our focus on usage, perceptions of IT in coursework, and the Navigator exploration.
We originally planed to include a 10 minute traditional freewrite on personal technology usage and perception, but decided to incorporate those question into the discussion questions when it was decided that class would be asynchronous. The purpose was to get our classmates thinking about their usage in preparation for the discussion questions we were asking. Our decision to use the Discussion Forum was based on a couple of reasons: 1. neither one of us are there, which makes other types of presentation difficult when using Skype as a platform. 2. it was a format that is typically used asynchronously, but can also be effective in synchronous classroom settings (something I've seen as a student, but never tried as a teacher). Our decision to use Worlde to tie everything together came from the desire to see the words most used to describe these activities. We were hoping it would give a clear glimpse into the language being used.
Using the discussion forum effectively took some playing around. We had to post a test topic (which we later deleted) to see what it would actually look like when discussion was happening. Beth's whole page was in Spanish (we later found out it was because of her browser-it's amazing how much difference a browser can make. Right now, the version of Blackboard I have to teach with isn't compatible with Explorer 9 and it's been wreaking havoc on my students).
I suppose it worked out well that we used the discussion forum since we ended up having to do class asynchronously this week. That's something that you just have to "roll with" and that attitude is exactly what saved us I think. Neither one of us panicked. We just adapted what we had to an asynchronous environment. We both teach at a distance, so that wasn't a huge stretch. The adaptation included creating videos and overall more instruction than the original lesson plan. We had to consider what students would have accomplished in the amount of time given in the class, which led us to our word counts and number of responses. Something else we considered was the fact that the students were graduate level. We didn't feel it was necessary to require more than one response in each discussion.
The experience was time consuming, but I suppose that's the nature of technology. In the process of converting the lesson plan, we got to work with pushing a Jing video to Youtube and weebly.com-two things neither one of us had done before.
Overall, based on the Wordle Clouds, we seem to have focused mostly on students, technology, the classroom, usage, competency or knowledge, and mobile and gaming devices. I would imagine this is would have been true even if the whole class had participated. I was disappointed to only see about half. That is a known issue when teaching distance courses asynchronously, and the synchronous discussion would have made it a non-issue. Something to think about when teaching distance courses: could we have done something differently?
We originally planed to include a 10 minute traditional freewrite on personal technology usage and perception, but decided to incorporate those question into the discussion questions when it was decided that class would be asynchronous. The purpose was to get our classmates thinking about their usage in preparation for the discussion questions we were asking. Our decision to use the Discussion Forum was based on a couple of reasons: 1. neither one of us are there, which makes other types of presentation difficult when using Skype as a platform. 2. it was a format that is typically used asynchronously, but can also be effective in synchronous classroom settings (something I've seen as a student, but never tried as a teacher). Our decision to use Worlde to tie everything together came from the desire to see the words most used to describe these activities. We were hoping it would give a clear glimpse into the language being used.
Using the discussion forum effectively took some playing around. We had to post a test topic (which we later deleted) to see what it would actually look like when discussion was happening. Beth's whole page was in Spanish (we later found out it was because of her browser-it's amazing how much difference a browser can make. Right now, the version of Blackboard I have to teach with isn't compatible with Explorer 9 and it's been wreaking havoc on my students).
I suppose it worked out well that we used the discussion forum since we ended up having to do class asynchronously this week. That's something that you just have to "roll with" and that attitude is exactly what saved us I think. Neither one of us panicked. We just adapted what we had to an asynchronous environment. We both teach at a distance, so that wasn't a huge stretch. The adaptation included creating videos and overall more instruction than the original lesson plan. We had to consider what students would have accomplished in the amount of time given in the class, which led us to our word counts and number of responses. Something else we considered was the fact that the students were graduate level. We didn't feel it was necessary to require more than one response in each discussion.
The experience was time consuming, but I suppose that's the nature of technology. In the process of converting the lesson plan, we got to work with pushing a Jing video to Youtube and weebly.com-two things neither one of us had done before.
Overall, based on the Wordle Clouds, we seem to have focused mostly on students, technology, the classroom, usage, competency or knowledge, and mobile and gaming devices. I would imagine this is would have been true even if the whole class had participated. I was disappointed to only see about half. That is a known issue when teaching distance courses asynchronously, and the synchronous discussion would have made it a non-issue. Something to think about when teaching distance courses: could we have done something differently?
Monday, October 3, 2011
Expanding Boyer
Braxton, John M.; William Luckey, Patricia Helland. "Institutionalizing a Broader View of Scholarship through Boyer's Four Domains." ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report. 29.2 (2002): 55-96. 1 Oct. 2011. Web. <http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED468779>
Likes:
I liked the focus on the scholarship of integration. Probably because I prefer those areas where disciplines begin to overlap. I think that's why I like ODU's English department-the interdisciplinary in the dept. as well as the willingness of many English dept. to be informed by other fields. I wouldn't say I like it, but I do like that they bring up collaboration as an issue because it's relevant today. Specifically for those trying to do New Media Dissertations without an expert knowledge of coding.
I specifically like the quote "Rice concludes by reminding us that all faculty should remain students throughout their careers" because I am a perpetual student. I liked the emphasis on classroom research by Cross (73) as I haven't bought into the idea that the scholarship of teaching absolutely needs to be published. Classroom research is ongoing, and I think should be shared at that level when something new is going to inform the field. That's not to say it can't be shared, but shared on a smaller level. I have a colleague that I work with to improve our courses-we do research on our classes each semester and share with each other what did and did not work in our individual classes. Our classrooms become our essays.
I like that the issues of traditional scholarship assessment templates in the scholarships of application, integration and teaching were brought up (87). The idea that the current reward structure (more publishing more benefit) limits the ability to institutionalize Boyer's domains to be an interesting one. Only "discovery" is rewarded. Also, I thought that the statement that CC's don't reward scholarship-especially for the adjunct-rang fairly true in my experience.
Confusion:
None
More: I have a list of questions to put under "More" because they weren't areas of confusion, but area's that I would like more information.
So has an agreement been made on who should be understanding the teacher's work? (I suppose this could be confusion-it just wasn't apparent to me)
Where would tutoring and writing center's fit into all this?
Self-assessment, peer assessment, student assessment-could we triangulate an assessment for our projects?
Likes:
I liked the focus on the scholarship of integration. Probably because I prefer those areas where disciplines begin to overlap. I think that's why I like ODU's English department-the interdisciplinary in the dept. as well as the willingness of many English dept. to be informed by other fields. I wouldn't say I like it, but I do like that they bring up collaboration as an issue because it's relevant today. Specifically for those trying to do New Media Dissertations without an expert knowledge of coding.
I specifically like the quote "Rice concludes by reminding us that all faculty should remain students throughout their careers" because I am a perpetual student. I liked the emphasis on classroom research by Cross (73) as I haven't bought into the idea that the scholarship of teaching absolutely needs to be published. Classroom research is ongoing, and I think should be shared at that level when something new is going to inform the field. That's not to say it can't be shared, but shared on a smaller level. I have a colleague that I work with to improve our courses-we do research on our classes each semester and share with each other what did and did not work in our individual classes. Our classrooms become our essays.
I like that the issues of traditional scholarship assessment templates in the scholarships of application, integration and teaching were brought up (87). The idea that the current reward structure (more publishing more benefit) limits the ability to institutionalize Boyer's domains to be an interesting one. Only "discovery" is rewarded. Also, I thought that the statement that CC's don't reward scholarship-especially for the adjunct-rang fairly true in my experience.
Confusion:
None
More: I have a list of questions to put under "More" because they weren't areas of confusion, but area's that I would like more information.
So has an agreement been made on who should be understanding the teacher's work? (I suppose this could be confusion-it just wasn't apparent to me)
Where would tutoring and writing center's fit into all this?
Self-assessment, peer assessment, student assessment-could we triangulate an assessment for our projects?
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
McGee & Ericsson
McGee, Tim and Patricia Ericsson. "The Politics of the Program: MS Word as the Invisible Grammarian." Computers in the Composition Classroom. Eds. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, and Elixabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2008: 308-325. Print.
Link to the article.
In this article, the author's reinforce the argument self makes about not "paying attention." They argue that the technology that fades into the background is the most dangerous. They take the argument for critical usage to the next step by focusing on a specific software program that has faded into the background (even still today). They analyze the background and implications of Microsoft Word's Grammar Check. Ultimately, the creation of Grammar Check was based on the field of computational linguistics, which has a different field focus than composition and rhetoric (the field that teaches most writing courses). Essentially, GC relies on a system that is not only not complete accurate, but sets up a binary system right vs. wrong. For the seasoned writer, the author's say this is not a big deal; however, they suggest that this can be detrimental to the student writer. In addition, the author's tie this system to the issue of Standard English. The right or wrong implications of the checker suggest right or wrong versions of language, which is tied back to the issues of power and the interface discussed in Selfe & Selfe.
This article comes at an interesting time because I just read "New Spaces and Old Places: An Analysis of Writing Assessment Software" by Vojak, et al. about a week ago. The article was published this year, and they found that many of the software programs are still basing their analysis and feedback on things like style, and whether or not keywords are present in the student writing. The issue of current traditional rhetoric present in the tools we use (whether it be textbooks or software) is still ever present. Blogger even has a spell check. I have red dots under words it doesn't recognize.
Link to the article.
In this article, the author's reinforce the argument self makes about not "paying attention." They argue that the technology that fades into the background is the most dangerous. They take the argument for critical usage to the next step by focusing on a specific software program that has faded into the background (even still today). They analyze the background and implications of Microsoft Word's Grammar Check. Ultimately, the creation of Grammar Check was based on the field of computational linguistics, which has a different field focus than composition and rhetoric (the field that teaches most writing courses). Essentially, GC relies on a system that is not only not complete accurate, but sets up a binary system right vs. wrong. For the seasoned writer, the author's say this is not a big deal; however, they suggest that this can be detrimental to the student writer. In addition, the author's tie this system to the issue of Standard English. The right or wrong implications of the checker suggest right or wrong versions of language, which is tied back to the issues of power and the interface discussed in Selfe & Selfe.
This article comes at an interesting time because I just read "New Spaces and Old Places: An Analysis of Writing Assessment Software" by Vojak, et al. about a week ago. The article was published this year, and they found that many of the software programs are still basing their analysis and feedback on things like style, and whether or not keywords are present in the student writing. The issue of current traditional rhetoric present in the tools we use (whether it be textbooks or software) is still ever present. Blogger even has a spell check. I have red dots under words it doesn't recognize.
Brain Rules Chapter 5 Notes
This week I played around with Prezi. I had heard of this program before (and seen it in action), but haven't had the opportunity to use it at all yet. I love it. I can see it as a very useful tool for making presentations individually and as a group (I noticed that you can group edit). I think it would be useful to use as a class as well. You could do something like give each group an area to play around in and create kind of a class presentation. You can add videos, files, images, pre-made diagrams, shapes, etc. Overall, I like it because it's not linear-for the times that you need to return to a point or when a linear presentation is not conducive to the idea you want to present. Right now, I wish had more time to play with it. Maybe for our final assignment...
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Reviewing NCTE Position Statement
The NCTE Position Statement on composing with non-print media in fact looks like it's been informed by many of the readings so far this semester. The statement itself focuses on the teaching of teachers (something we've seen suggested in the SoTL readings as well as Selfe's readings), the idea that we should be researching and being critical about the use of non-print media (Hawisher and Selfe; Selfe and Selfe), and issues of access (Selfe & Selfe, ECAR). The statement promotes broadening the definition of literacy. This made me think of Ohmann actually simply because I wonder what the result of broadening the definition would be. Would it become something to solidify class status as he suggests, or is broadening the definition of literacy allowing those outside of the "power" class to have some say in the definition? Is participatory culture making the issues of access in forms other than monetary become obsolete? By creating things that serve your purpose, are you able to undermine power?
Monday, September 26, 2011
2011 Horizon Report
"2011 Horizon Report." Educause, 08 Feb. 2011. Web. 13 Sep 2011. <http://www.educause.edu/Resources/2011HorizonReport/223122>.
Link to the report.
The Horizons Report identifies and discusses the implications in regard to teaching, learning, research and creative inquiry, what is being done now, and further reading for technologies they identify becoming main stream within certain time frames. This years report includes ebooks, and "mobiles" in the 12 month range, augmented reality and game based are 2-3 years and gesture based computing and learning analytics are 4-5 years. It will be interesting to see how some of this plays out. With the ebooks, they're popular, but personally won't get the most out of it until it's not only more interactive-I need to be able to write on it. I do currently use BB on my phone phone for TCC. It's also hepful in email access and discussion posts, but I couldn't grade with it and I haven't had a student that can type a paper on it yet. I have seen students do it with tablets though, so I could see it useful as a student. A couple of weeks ago, I had a student ask why they would want to access the library on their phone at Kaplan, so some students are still skeptical. When I read about learning analytics all I could think of was big brother, and the idea of power in silently watching via technology that Selfe and Selfe talked about.
When I read about the gesture based computing, all I could think of was Gmail's April Fool's joke.
Link to the report.
The Horizons Report identifies and discusses the implications in regard to teaching, learning, research and creative inquiry, what is being done now, and further reading for technologies they identify becoming main stream within certain time frames. This years report includes ebooks, and "mobiles" in the 12 month range, augmented reality and game based are 2-3 years and gesture based computing and learning analytics are 4-5 years. It will be interesting to see how some of this plays out. With the ebooks, they're popular, but personally won't get the most out of it until it's not only more interactive-I need to be able to write on it. I do currently use BB on my phone phone for TCC. It's also hepful in email access and discussion posts, but I couldn't grade with it and I haven't had a student that can type a paper on it yet. I have seen students do it with tablets though, so I could see it useful as a student. A couple of weeks ago, I had a student ask why they would want to access the library on their phone at Kaplan, so some students are still skeptical. When I read about learning analytics all I could think of was big brother, and the idea of power in silently watching via technology that Selfe and Selfe talked about.
When I read about the gesture based computing, all I could think of was Gmail's April Fool's joke.
ECAR 2010
Smith, Shannon D., and Judith B. Caruso. "ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2010." Educause, 22 Oct 2010. Web. 13 Sep 2011. <http://www.educause.edu/Resources/ECARStudyofUndergraduateStuden/217333>.
Link the the study.
This study reports on the research findings about undergraduate student use of technology in myriad ways. They've looked at student ownership and use of different types of technology in relation to school work as well as personal endeavors. The limits of the study would be that the target population is the traditional student-I would imagine that most of the numbers that showed up were not surprising when considering the traditional student and his/her use of and access to technology. Would these numbers be considered skewed b/c those that have access would be the ones responding?
I thought this was an interesting article about the uses of technology outside of school work. Again, limitations based on who is taking the survey because of who is being asked to take it, but interesting nonetheless. It had a particular connection to the Alexander article last week-technology can be used against the GLB community as well.
Link the the study.
This study reports on the research findings about undergraduate student use of technology in myriad ways. They've looked at student ownership and use of different types of technology in relation to school work as well as personal endeavors. The limits of the study would be that the target population is the traditional student-I would imagine that most of the numbers that showed up were not surprising when considering the traditional student and his/her use of and access to technology. Would these numbers be considered skewed b/c those that have access would be the ones responding?
I thought this was an interesting article about the uses of technology outside of school work. Again, limitations based on who is taking the survey because of who is being asked to take it, but interesting nonetheless. It had a particular connection to the Alexander article last week-technology can be used against the GLB community as well.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Baron- Pencils to Pixels
Baron, Dennis. "From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technologies." Computers in the Composition Classroom. Eds. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, and Elixabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2008. 116-134. Print.
In this article, Baron makes the argument that new technologies (from the "pencil to the pixel") go through similar stages if they "catch on" and the computer is newest development in a long history of literacy technologies. After a new technology is developed, whether or not it is widely used ultimately depends on how accessible it is, what the function is, and whether or not we can authenticate it. He takes the reader through a history of literacy technologies beginning with language itself, the use of clay tokens as the start of writing, writing itself, the pencil, the telephone, and the computer. One issue that comes up and is difficult to maneuver is the authentication of the digital world. As he says "As anyone knows who's lost a file or tried to revisit a website, electronic texts have a greater tendency to disappear than conventional print resources" (131). Finally, Baron brings up the same issues that have been themes through the rest of the readings in the book-access to literacy based on socioeconomic status and the technology fading into the background and becoming "natural."
I enjoyed the tone of this piece, and his integration of Thoreau as businessman instead of literary figure. I do have to agree with him that the computer is just another tool; however, with any tool, we need to determine whether or not that tools is best suited for our purposes and shouldn't forget that even the language we use is a tool. As a matter of fact, this reading (very indirectly) reminded me of Reddy's Toolmaker's Paradigm in that the technology (and literacy in that technology) plays a role in the communication created with it.
I suppose I should have guessed it, but there's a website called pencils.com that I thought was pretty cool, and relevant. At the bottom of the page, there is a link for the history of the pencil and free lesson plans on the pencil. Teaching with Technology right? :)
In this article, Baron makes the argument that new technologies (from the "pencil to the pixel") go through similar stages if they "catch on" and the computer is newest development in a long history of literacy technologies. After a new technology is developed, whether or not it is widely used ultimately depends on how accessible it is, what the function is, and whether or not we can authenticate it. He takes the reader through a history of literacy technologies beginning with language itself, the use of clay tokens as the start of writing, writing itself, the pencil, the telephone, and the computer. One issue that comes up and is difficult to maneuver is the authentication of the digital world. As he says "As anyone knows who's lost a file or tried to revisit a website, electronic texts have a greater tendency to disappear than conventional print resources" (131). Finally, Baron brings up the same issues that have been themes through the rest of the readings in the book-access to literacy based on socioeconomic status and the technology fading into the background and becoming "natural."
I enjoyed the tone of this piece, and his integration of Thoreau as businessman instead of literary figure. I do have to agree with him that the computer is just another tool; however, with any tool, we need to determine whether or not that tools is best suited for our purposes and shouldn't forget that even the language we use is a tool. As a matter of fact, this reading (very indirectly) reminded me of Reddy's Toolmaker's Paradigm in that the technology (and literacy in that technology) plays a role in the communication created with it.
I suppose I should have guessed it, but there's a website called pencils.com that I thought was pretty cool, and relevant. At the bottom of the page, there is a link for the history of the pencil and free lesson plans on the pencil. Teaching with Technology right? :)
Brain Rules Chapter 4 Notes
This week, I used popplet to take notes. This is the first time I used the program, and I did like it. I ended up creating a mind-map of sorts with a brain in the middle. I liked that I was able to add comments to each popple, and add things like googlemaps, facebook content, youtube videos and a link to a book on amazon that was relevant. I think this would be useful to a classroom setting in that students could use popplet's to try and pull ideas together individually, but also for group work. It could be used to help generate idea or to present ideas-you can export it as a presentation or a jpeg.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Bass-The Scholarship of Teaching: What's the problem?
Bass, Randy. "The Scholarship of Teaching: What's the problem?" Inventio. 1.1 (February 1999). 17 Sept. 2011. Web.<http://doit.gmu.edu//Archives/feb98/randybass.htm>
1. What did you like (and why)?
That Bass focused on the perceived learning of his students as a problem as opposed to assuming that good evaluations and high grades were equal to learning. This is an issue today and one that might never have an answer: how do we determine when meaningful learning has taken place? I also like that reading both of these articles has made me appreciate the field I'm in. We have a solid background in the kind of scholarship that has been discussed.
2. Where were you confused?
Nowhere.
3. Where would you like to know more (and why)?
I was interested in what scholarship has been done since this was published on the evaluation of learning in general.
1. What did you like (and why)?
That Bass focused on the perceived learning of his students as a problem as opposed to assuming that good evaluations and high grades were equal to learning. This is an issue today and one that might never have an answer: how do we determine when meaningful learning has taken place? I also like that reading both of these articles has made me appreciate the field I'm in. We have a solid background in the kind of scholarship that has been discussed.
2. Where were you confused?
Nowhere.
3. Where would you like to know more (and why)?
I was interested in what scholarship has been done since this was published on the evaluation of learning in general.
The Scholarship of Teaching: New Elaborations, New Developements
Hutchings, Pat and Lee S. Shulman."The Scholarship of Teaching: New Elaborations, New Developments." Change. 31.5 (September/October 1999): 10-15. 17 Sept. 2011. Web. <http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/elibrary/scholarship-teaching-new-elaborations-new-developments>
1. What did you like (and why)?
I liked that the article seemed to summarize where the field has come from, what advancements and expansions had been made at that point. This was both useful for doing further research and it gives the reader an idea of where the field is at the time. I also liked that they brought up the issue of "credible methods of inquiry" as this is something that is still questioned today, especially in relation to classroom-based research. They also encouraged the use of interdisciplinary work to inquire, investigate and support what they have to say. This is something I liked because it's something I've done in the past and I've found it to be helpful.
2. Where were you confused?
Nowhere.
3. Where would you like to know more (and why)?
What "what" questions have been answered? Have there been inquiries about inquiry as they have suggested? I'm interested in these questions as it seems that those questions were the way to broaden the scholarship. The article was written in 1999, so I'm curious whether or not the inquiry has moved beyond methods.
1. What did you like (and why)?
I liked that the article seemed to summarize where the field has come from, what advancements and expansions had been made at that point. This was both useful for doing further research and it gives the reader an idea of where the field is at the time. I also liked that they brought up the issue of "credible methods of inquiry" as this is something that is still questioned today, especially in relation to classroom-based research. They also encouraged the use of interdisciplinary work to inquire, investigate and support what they have to say. This is something I liked because it's something I've done in the past and I've found it to be helpful.
2. Where were you confused?
Nowhere.
3. Where would you like to know more (and why)?
What "what" questions have been answered? Have there been inquiries about inquiry as they have suggested? I'm interested in these questions as it seems that those questions were the way to broaden the scholarship. The article was written in 1999, so I'm curious whether or not the inquiry has moved beyond methods.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Ch. 6 Selfe: Technology and Literacy
Selfe, Cynthia L. "Technology and Literacy: A Story about the Perils of Not Paying Attention." Computers in the Composition Classroom. Eds. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, and Elixabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2008. 93-115. Print.
A link to the article.
Cynthia Selfe argues that by not paying attention to the ways technology is being used and taught, we are perpetuating the ideological framework that has defined literacy and illiteracy in the wider sense and in regard to technology itself. She argues that the concept of technological literacy was fueled by an economic move in the early to mid nighties to both create international dependency on the US for technology and create a self-perpetuating cycle of consumers (those who have learned the technology). She says that this binary (literate/illiterate) has been used to both supply workers for manual labors jobs in society, secure cash flow to those that are creating new technologies, and perpetuate the existing class system. Ultimately, the movement of "technological literacy" has only changed the tool or criteria used to determine literacy vs. illiteracy. She argues that we need to pay attention to what technology and our teaching of (and with) it are doing. We should be teaching students to critically analyze the technology and the related social issues. We need a broad definition of literacy skills, and work toward getting access to poor and minority students and citizens.
I thought that the article brought together a lot of what we've been reading, and the concerns were real ones not just in 1999, but today as well. When she mentioned the cycle of technology learner and consumer, I wondered if that was the case with the pencil as well. If someone was taught how to write, they would then need the tools to continue to do so. Literacy is certainly socially constructed; even as far back as classical rhetoricians. Many argued that in order to speak well, you needed to learn how to be orator. Simply being born, learning to speak, and using that language did not make you a rhetorician. It was used then to separate haves from have nots. It also made me wonder if it's gotten any better. Have we taken Selfe's advise and started paying attention?
I thought that the Journal of Literacy and Technology was pretty relevant to this article. And the Intel Education Site brought up some interesting questions (and fit was what Selfe was trying to argue?)
A link to the article.
Cynthia Selfe argues that by not paying attention to the ways technology is being used and taught, we are perpetuating the ideological framework that has defined literacy and illiteracy in the wider sense and in regard to technology itself. She argues that the concept of technological literacy was fueled by an economic move in the early to mid nighties to both create international dependency on the US for technology and create a self-perpetuating cycle of consumers (those who have learned the technology). She says that this binary (literate/illiterate) has been used to both supply workers for manual labors jobs in society, secure cash flow to those that are creating new technologies, and perpetuate the existing class system. Ultimately, the movement of "technological literacy" has only changed the tool or criteria used to determine literacy vs. illiteracy. She argues that we need to pay attention to what technology and our teaching of (and with) it are doing. We should be teaching students to critically analyze the technology and the related social issues. We need a broad definition of literacy skills, and work toward getting access to poor and minority students and citizens.
I thought that the article brought together a lot of what we've been reading, and the concerns were real ones not just in 1999, but today as well. When she mentioned the cycle of technology learner and consumer, I wondered if that was the case with the pencil as well. If someone was taught how to write, they would then need the tools to continue to do so. Literacy is certainly socially constructed; even as far back as classical rhetoricians. Many argued that in order to speak well, you needed to learn how to be orator. Simply being born, learning to speak, and using that language did not make you a rhetorician. It was used then to separate haves from have nots. It also made me wonder if it's gotten any better. Have we taken Selfe's advise and started paying attention?
I thought that the Journal of Literacy and Technology was pretty relevant to this article. And the Intel Education Site brought up some interesting questions (and fit was what Selfe was trying to argue?)
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Brain Rules Chapter 3 Notes
Okay, so I downloaded Powernote (by Diigo) to my phone and I was going to use the speech note to record my thoughts and post it to the blog. Epic fail. First, it's speech to text, so it wasn't exactly what I thought. Second, it did an absolutely terrible job of converting speech to text, it does it slowly, and only catches a couple words at a time. Maybe handy for a grocery list, but not for my purposes. So, I went back to the web and found www.voicethread.com. This was a new technology to me, but was intrigued because you can have several people commenting on the same image or video, etc. at the same time in different ways. So what I did was upload the picture you see below, and then used each one of the features to flesh out my notes. I can see this being very helpful in a group project, but also in an individual project. If you were making notes to yourself as you went along. Can't wait to have the time to play with it more. The first recording, was just me talking into my speaker, the second was using my phone (yes, voicethread called me, but I only had three minutes to talk), the third note was text, and the final one was supposed to be video, but couldn't get it to work. (I didn't try for very long though).
Enjoy!
Enjoy!
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Woodhouse-Hype or Hope?
Woodhouse, Rosamund. "Hype or Hope: Can the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Fulfill Its Promise?" International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 4.1(2010): 1-8. Web. 11 Sept. 2011. http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl.
This article assesses the value of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning over the last decade or so based on looking beyond "this is something we should do" to the evidence that it has been effective. The author uses Hutchings and Shulman’s “The Scholarship of Teaching: New Elaborations, New Developments” (1999) as a basis for the start of this research field, and pins it as a branch off of Boyer's Reconsidering Scholarship (1990). She pinpoints two reasons why SoTL has not been able to produce anything useful in pedagogical practices: epistemic and educational. Essentially, classroom based research and the inability to make generalities based on the evidence is being challenged, and teachers are expected to learn and put the findings into practice by reading published research. She suggests workshops, collaborative approaches and new media usage to help solve the educational problem. The epistemic problem, the author posits, will remain unsolved; however, research that cannot be generalized still has a place in that it sparks new research that can be. At the end, Woodhouse brings SoTL as defined by Hutchings and Shulman back under the umbrella created by Boyer in order to get rid of the debate over the appropriation of the scholarship of teaching and learning, before giving a summary of what needs to be done in order to create a new model of SoTL.
I was actually glad that Woodhouse brought it all back together (Hutchings & Shulman with Boyer) because when I first started reading, I wasn't sure why they felt the need to branch off into a whole new field of study under the "Scholarship of Teaching." I agree with the author that it should fall under the larger blanket of Research because Boyer's argument specifically supported the idea that the four areas of the Professoriate are linked together and overlapping. The new model that she proposes seems to try and marry the traditional academic standards of research with the SoTL research, thereby making SoTL research valid in academia.
This article assesses the value of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning over the last decade or so based on looking beyond "this is something we should do" to the evidence that it has been effective. The author uses Hutchings and Shulman’s “The Scholarship of Teaching: New Elaborations, New Developments” (1999) as a basis for the start of this research field, and pins it as a branch off of Boyer's Reconsidering Scholarship (1990). She pinpoints two reasons why SoTL has not been able to produce anything useful in pedagogical practices: epistemic and educational. Essentially, classroom based research and the inability to make generalities based on the evidence is being challenged, and teachers are expected to learn and put the findings into practice by reading published research. She suggests workshops, collaborative approaches and new media usage to help solve the educational problem. The epistemic problem, the author posits, will remain unsolved; however, research that cannot be generalized still has a place in that it sparks new research that can be. At the end, Woodhouse brings SoTL as defined by Hutchings and Shulman back under the umbrella created by Boyer in order to get rid of the debate over the appropriation of the scholarship of teaching and learning, before giving a summary of what needs to be done in order to create a new model of SoTL.
I was actually glad that Woodhouse brought it all back together (Hutchings & Shulman with Boyer) because when I first started reading, I wasn't sure why they felt the need to branch off into a whole new field of study under the "Scholarship of Teaching." I agree with the author that it should fall under the larger blanket of Research because Boyer's argument specifically supported the idea that the four areas of the Professoriate are linked together and overlapping. The new model that she proposes seems to try and marry the traditional academic standards of research with the SoTL research, thereby making SoTL research valid in academia.
Boyer-Scholarship Reconsidered
Boyer, Ernest, L. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990: 15-25. Print.
Ultimately, Boyer is calling for a broader definition of what it means to be a scholar. He brings in four areas: discovery, integration, application, and teaching. In order to be a scholar, all four are necessary parts of the process. Learning new information, making connections between the information, applying the learning and learning from the application, and teaching what you've learned. Each one informs the other, so they cannot be separated, but by including them all as in the scholarship 'process' we broaden the definition of scholarship.
I think Boyer brings up a great point. This is seen directly in debates in English Studies and how "we" came to be what we are today (or maybe what we should be today). The necessary pieces that he discusses influence and inform each other. I suppose it points to why it's so important for those that use technology in teaching to continue to study it. I think technology is fluid today-what's here today could be gone tomorrow and then back again once "they've" made changes to it. I also saw this as a call to interdisciplinary work. This we're seeing more of in English departments (because we're one of many "disciplines") however, I think the vision is for more departments to work together in order to learn (then starting the "cycle").
Ultimately, Boyer is calling for a broader definition of what it means to be a scholar. He brings in four areas: discovery, integration, application, and teaching. In order to be a scholar, all four are necessary parts of the process. Learning new information, making connections between the information, applying the learning and learning from the application, and teaching what you've learned. Each one informs the other, so they cannot be separated, but by including them all as in the scholarship 'process' we broaden the definition of scholarship.
I think Boyer brings up a great point. This is seen directly in debates in English Studies and how "we" came to be what we are today (or maybe what we should be today). The necessary pieces that he discusses influence and inform each other. I suppose it points to why it's so important for those that use technology in teaching to continue to study it. I think technology is fluid today-what's here today could be gone tomorrow and then back again once "they've" made changes to it. I also saw this as a call to interdisciplinary work. This we're seeing more of in English departments (because we're one of many "disciplines") however, I think the vision is for more departments to work together in order to learn (then starting the "cycle").
Friday, September 9, 2011
Jenkins-Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture
Jenkins, Henry, Katie Clinton, Ravi Purushotma, Alice J. Robison, Margaret Weigel. "Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century." Building the Field of Digital Media and Learning. 2006. The MacArthur Foundation. Web. 8 Sept. 2011. <http://digitallearning.macfound.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=enJLKQNlFiG&b=2108773&ct=3017973¬oc=1>
Active Link to White Paper
They begin by examining participatory culture and give examples of poor students who have done great things with media because of their "play" in new media. Using this as a basis, they argue that the skills are important, that our culture and expectations of what makes a contributing citizen are changing. Part of the problem is that students feel disconnected from the material in classrooms right now because they are "powerless" in that structure. They get no say, and can feel no connection because it's depersonalized and abstract. With that in mind they support the need to teach these skills in classrooms for three reasons: participation gap, transparency, ethics. They then go on to question what should be considered literacy, and explain that they see new media skills as social skills because of the effect they will have on their ability to work within society. This is followed by a list of core media literacy skills. The authors go through a list of skills giving detailed examples of why they're important and how they're playing out currently. The skills are: play, simulation, performance (role play), appropriation, multi-tasking, distributed cognition, collective intelligence, judgment, transmedia navigation, networking and negotiation. Finally, they discuss who should doing the teaching: schools, after-school programs, parents.
I liked that they essentially covered the WWWWWH's of 21st century literacy. I also liked that they didn't suggest throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They brought up a lot of good points about the positive effects of learning these skills, but also supporting why they should be learned in a "controlled" or safe environment. The examples and sources they use do a great job of explaining their point and examining how we'll do it. In fact, I'll be raiding their bibliography to read some of those studies firsthand. This document does, on the whole, play into the readings by Ohmann and Selfe & Selfe in that they suggest we teach students to criticize technology (as we should be) and they support closing what they call the "participation gap" by teaching students the skills necessary to function in our society in order to be successful (loosely related to Ohmann in that he suggests that technology is power of the haves over the have nots). This does raise the questions of: what is success? are we just preparing them for the "real world"? and if so what's wrong with that?
This first video is almost a video representation of what Jenkins has to say. It's about 2 mins. long.
This second video is interesting. A collection of teachers went out to find out how other practitioners define literacy. It was updated in 2009. It's about 8 mins, so a little longer, but interesting none the less.
Active Link to White Paper
They begin by examining participatory culture and give examples of poor students who have done great things with media because of their "play" in new media. Using this as a basis, they argue that the skills are important, that our culture and expectations of what makes a contributing citizen are changing. Part of the problem is that students feel disconnected from the material in classrooms right now because they are "powerless" in that structure. They get no say, and can feel no connection because it's depersonalized and abstract. With that in mind they support the need to teach these skills in classrooms for three reasons: participation gap, transparency, ethics. They then go on to question what should be considered literacy, and explain that they see new media skills as social skills because of the effect they will have on their ability to work within society. This is followed by a list of core media literacy skills. The authors go through a list of skills giving detailed examples of why they're important and how they're playing out currently. The skills are: play, simulation, performance (role play), appropriation, multi-tasking, distributed cognition, collective intelligence, judgment, transmedia navigation, networking and negotiation. Finally, they discuss who should doing the teaching: schools, after-school programs, parents.
I liked that they essentially covered the WWWWWH's of 21st century literacy. I also liked that they didn't suggest throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They brought up a lot of good points about the positive effects of learning these skills, but also supporting why they should be learned in a "controlled" or safe environment. The examples and sources they use do a great job of explaining their point and examining how we'll do it. In fact, I'll be raiding their bibliography to read some of those studies firsthand. This document does, on the whole, play into the readings by Ohmann and Selfe & Selfe in that they suggest we teach students to criticize technology (as we should be) and they support closing what they call the "participation gap" by teaching students the skills necessary to function in our society in order to be successful (loosely related to Ohmann in that he suggests that technology is power of the haves over the have nots). This does raise the questions of: what is success? are we just preparing them for the "real world"? and if so what's wrong with that?
This first video is almost a video representation of what Jenkins has to say. It's about 2 mins. long.
This second video is interesting. A collection of teachers went out to find out how other practitioners define literacy. It was updated in 2009. It's about 8 mins, so a little longer, but interesting none the less.
Selfe & Selfe: Politics of the Interface
Selfe, Cynthia L. and Richard J. Selfe, Jr. "The Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones." Computers in the Composition Classroom. Eds. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, and Elixabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2008. 64-85. Print.
Digital Article
Digital Article
So, in a nutshell, this continues the conversation started by Hawisher and Selfe. They build their concern about oppression/power structures through technology with the idea of borders. In moving from a vision of country borders to the borders created by a narrow vision of what the computer should "do," the article shows how something as basic as a pointer can alienate a user. They explain the computer and its interfaces as primarly growing out of a white, male, middle-class, business professional context, which has led to accessibility issues for those that don’t fit into any or all of those categories. There is issue in both the way computers are physically used in minority vs. majority classrooms as well as issues in the enforced cultural standards that the computer design/map/interface has put onto the user. The authors give three suggestions for balancing the power and making the interface more accessible to those unfamiliar with the dominant culture that created it: become technology critics and users, contribute to design (become the teacher/software designer), re-conceive the interface borders.
My thoughts on Selfe & Selfe are a bit scattered, but this is what came up as I was reading:
So what will happen now that much of the computer programming does not happen in the US where English is privileged? The other question is: would the same issues have developed if another country had been center stage for many of the developments? This made me think of a couple of summers ago when I was in Spain, because the ISP was local all of the websites that I pulled up automatically came up in Spanish. I had to go in and manually change Google to US English. I thought it was amazing. Maybe not technologically so, it's pretty simple to understand the how, but it made me happy that everything wasn't so American English-centric.
We’ve seen changes in language availability since this article came out, but it was only in the ‘90’s that people started bringing computers into their homes. We didn’t own one until 2000. I was a sophomore in high school. Before that, I used a typewriter or the library. Technology, regardless of the type, has always been “trickle down.” If you look at VHS, vs. DVD, vs. Blueray. “Eventually” prices come down as they trickle down deeper into the market. People wait for prices to come down on certain luxuries. Until recently, weren’t owning personal computers just a luxury? The computer was initially meant for the military and then the business world before it “invaded” homes. Now that they’re more popular in homes (in fact more people now work from home), do they still hold these values?
I do think that the Selfe's are right in that we need to be critical, but that's the case with most cultural developments and tools. We should always ask: is this the best tool for the job?
This link will take you to the Unicode website. I was interested in what was being done today about such access issues, and despite the fact that when you click on the website it's in English, it does allow much more access than there was to multilingual technology than in 1994.
My thoughts on Selfe & Selfe are a bit scattered, but this is what came up as I was reading:
So what will happen now that much of the computer programming does not happen in the US where English is privileged? The other question is: would the same issues have developed if another country had been center stage for many of the developments? This made me think of a couple of summers ago when I was in Spain, because the ISP was local all of the websites that I pulled up automatically came up in Spanish. I had to go in and manually change Google to US English. I thought it was amazing. Maybe not technologically so, it's pretty simple to understand the how, but it made me happy that everything wasn't so American English-centric.
We’ve seen changes in language availability since this article came out, but it was only in the ‘90’s that people started bringing computers into their homes. We didn’t own one until 2000. I was a sophomore in high school. Before that, I used a typewriter or the library. Technology, regardless of the type, has always been “trickle down.” If you look at VHS, vs. DVD, vs. Blueray. “Eventually” prices come down as they trickle down deeper into the market. People wait for prices to come down on certain luxuries. Until recently, weren’t owning personal computers just a luxury? The computer was initially meant for the military and then the business world before it “invaded” homes. Now that they’re more popular in homes (in fact more people now work from home), do they still hold these values?
I do think that the Selfe's are right in that we need to be critical, but that's the case with most cultural developments and tools. We should always ask: is this the best tool for the job?
This link will take you to the Unicode website. I was interested in what was being done today about such access issues, and despite the fact that when you click on the website it's in English, it does allow much more access than there was to multilingual technology than in 1994.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)