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.
Monday, October 31, 2011
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)