Extra Blog 2: Article review

Buck, A. "The Invisible Interface: MS Word in the Writing Center." Computers and Composition 25.4 (2008): 396-415. Print.

 

This article is one I actually found for my other class, ENGL 685. I'm doing a research paper about the disconnect among word processing skills and students in community college. This article is all about using MS Word in the writing center, which struck me because I work in a writing center.

 

The article basically says that writing centers should realize that technology is not a transparent tool that doesn't affect the writing that emerges from it. Therefore, instead of students bringing in printed off papers and having writing center employees mark all over them with pen, they should edit papers through word processing directly. This would be more relevant for students, because it reflects the ways in which they actually write.

 

This made me think of our class for many reasons. Technology is affecting everything that we do, but perhaps especially the way we write. Would this be successful in a writing center?

Extra Blog 1: Personal experience

Today, I went to a real estate office to get some brochures and realty magazines for a friend's mother. She's thinking of moving back to North Carolina from Illinois, and therefore wanted some information. She doesn't have internet at home, so it's a real hassle for her to go all the way to her local library to get online. Therefore, I was happy to oblige and snail mail her some information that she could use.

When I got to the realty office, the lady looked at me like she was extremely confused when I asked for some realty magazines. She gave me the ones that she had in the office, and then said "you'd be much better off searching online." I said, "Well, these are for someone else, and she doesn't really get online that often." The lady gave me a knowing look, and said, "Oh, is she old?"

Well, my friend's mom isn't old. She's the same age as my mom, and my mom could definitely get online and search real estate listings if she wanted to. It just so happens that she doesn't have internet, so this is an issue of access, not of age. It was interesting to me, because we talk so much about access and those who are more inclined to use technology than others. It just shows how much this stereotype is perpetuated-- if someone doesn't use a computer, they must be old.

Chapter 8: Responding and Assessing

Selfe, Cynthia L. Multimodal Composition: Resources for Teachers. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton, 2007. Print.


This chapter is all about assessing composition assignments. I was really interested in reading this, because in the writing center where I work, I have found that a lot of teachers grades are very subjective. Most of the time, no rubrics are used, and their own personal whims have a lot to do with the ways in which they grade papers. Students know which teachers are tough graders, versus which ones aren't. It makes me beg the question of how exactly teachers can achieve more consistency?


What I like about this chapter is the fact that it addresses the importance of instruction lining up consistently with evaluation. I hear students all the time saying that their teachers are easygoing, laid back, and seem to want them to succeed. When they get their graded papers back, however, they are extremely harsh graders. The tone for the course, as well as the expectations therein, need to be consistent. 


What confuses me is the concept that appears on page 103: "How do teachers know when they have acquired sufficient experience composing and understanding multimodal texts to help students?" I don't really like this idea, because I feel that if teachers always think they're not experienced enough to use technology with their students, they might shy away from evolving their classrooms toward the 21st century in general. Isn't it better to dive right in than to be afraid to try?


I would like to know more about instructive evaluation. This brings to mind the process of teachers going through already graded tests and discussing each answer with students. I remember this being an excruciating process when I had to do it as a younger student, so I wonder how it could be made to be more effective. 

Yancey: looking for sources of coherence in a fragmented world

Sidler, Michelle, Elizabeth O. Smith, and Richard Morris. Computers in the Composition Classroom: a Critical Sourcebook. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2008. Print.




Kathleen Yancey, in this piece, discusses the issue of intertextuality. We have so many mediums with which to produce writing in our modern era. It could be potentially changing the way we write, but it has largely been found that it isn't. What some worry about is that some mediums may be abandoned in favor of others. Instead of this happening, intertextuality occurs.

What I like about this piece is the section on digital compositions and coherence. A lot of times, people feel that coherence is implied within digital compositions, as it is in the form of email. "We have email, where coherence is created, in part through repetition..." this idea is perpetuated even more within templates, like those used in Microsoft PowerPoint, or in digital portfolios. I'm confused by this, also, because there isn't as much focus on coherence in content within this section. I feel that people get so caught up with coherence in design, that theybforget the importance of coherent content.

I would like to know more about the assessment of coherence. As we saw with the ee cummings piece, it can be a little arbitrary. How can we agree on true coherence and judge it in a quantitative way?

Rethinking validity and reliability in the age of convergence

Sidler, Michelle, Elizabeth O. Smith, and Richard Morris. Computers in the Composition Classroom: a Critical Sourcebook. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2008.

This article focuses on the fact that teachers need assessment strategies within their classrooms in order to achieve the goals of reliability and validity.

What I like about this piece is the fact that the author thinks that networked writing is a good thing. The author says this in spite of the fact that she thinks writing must be orderly, regulated, knowable, and natural. I like that she makes this distinction, because many teachers, I know, are afraid of letting their students open up to technological practices because some relinquishment of teacher control is implied. Penrod states that this isn't so. Writing can be equally successful when collaborative and networked, versus when it isn't.

I am confused by Penrod's preference for qualitative assessment versus a quantitative assessment for grading. This is great in theory, but how can teachers with tons of students ever grade all of the papers they're responsible for without using a points system and rubric? I'd like to know more about instances in which this model was successful in classrooms.

My Time with ToonDoo

By betsyrice | View this Toon at ToonDoo | Create your own Toon

I must say, I am not a huge fan of ToonDoo. It's not very user-friendly; it was hard to insert text, and make this text fit within my frames. There seemed to be nowhere to resize text, which I found very inconvenient. In addition, the backgrounds were limited, and all of the functions didn't work on my iPad... This was inconvenient, because I brought my iPad with me out of town to do some homework, and I ended up having to use my family's tonk tonk pc in the end!

That being said, I liked the Brain Rules chapter this week (as always). Sense of smell really is tied to long-term memory. Something that's always amazed me is that you can recall a memory, and actually imagine the smells tied to this memory. How can you imagine a smell??

My reflective video

Make a video - it's fun, easy and free!
www.onetruemedia.com

MC Responding Exercise

I really enjoyed reading my classmates' blogs and finding out their thoughts on the chapters we were assigned to read. I feel that it helped me gain another perspective in some cases, and definitely solidified the information in my mind to read the info through a different avenue.

Amanda's blog on chapter 7 really helped me. She zeroed in on the issues teachers having when trying to teach multimodally-- there's a lot of pressure involved, and they have to learn to be quick troubleshooters. This is absolutely true, and interesting to think about. So much focus is on the students and how they will accept multimodality. The teachers have quite an adjustment to make, also.

I also referenced Amanda's blog for chapter 5. In it, she addressed using a rhetorical lens for multimodal projects. She liked the fact that the chapter provided key terms and examples for going about teaching multimodally through a more rhetorical method. This is a great perspective, as I myself sort of shy away from theory in general. It's not all bad, though, and should be considered at least somewhat.

I used Sarah's blog to revisit chapters 3 and 4. In chapter 4, Sarah addressed collaboration. She really liked the keys for success in collaborating digitally. It can be really difficult to get students to want to collaborate. This can be especially true in a digital environment, which is largely seen as a solitary endeavor. This chapter provides real world examples and keys for success, which Sarah deemed important.

In chapter 3, she addressed the portion of the chapter that implores teachers to really think about the theory, structure, and circulation of multimodal assignments. Teachers become so enthusiastic sometimes, that they forget exactly how to convey to their students exactly what they expect, and exactly how they want the project to play out. Think about your audience, teachers! In this case, your audience is the students.

I used Beth's blog for chapter 2. In this chapter, Beth really liked the diagrams given for the similarities and differences among modes. There are so many types of composing, that multimodal composition is really a lofty term. If we can use these handy diagrams, and others like it, we can more effectively find the right fit for our students. In addition, Beth liked that this listed challenges, which I agree is great. We have to acknowledge that there are challenges to multimodal composition. That way, we can share ideas on how to overcome these challenges.

Chapter 5: Thinking Rhetorically

Selfe, Cynthia L. Multimodal Composition: Resources for Teachers.
             Cresskill, NJ: Hampton, 2007. Print.
This chapter is really interesting, because it delves into the issues of taking rhetorical principles that we already know to be effective within conventional essays, and channeling them into multimodal assignments. This is a great idea, because it will reaffirm teacher notions that multimodal compositions can have the same rhetorical effectiveness as traditional alphabetic essays, and help student develop necessary skills for tackling these somewhat unconventional projects. 


I am confused by the fact that teachers in traditional high school classrooms seem so against technology-- students aren't allowed to have their phones, login to Twitter or YouTube at school, or do anything else that would be seen as multimodal fun on the web. However, teachers seem excited when they want to do a multimodal assignment, and students already have some knowledge about using technological platforms. I think this goes into the low-stakes exploration we do in this class. It's important to play around with all kinds of technology to increase one's knowledge and comfort level-- why are we stigmatizing it in some arenas, and encouraging it in others?


I'd like to learn more about how to engage students within technological platforms without them being tempted to waste time on Facebook. There's got to be a way to make getting online during class time a fun experience, without letting them actually do things that they consider fun! It's blowing my mind a little bit to think about how to strike a balance...

Chapter 4: Collaborating on Multimodal Projects

Selfe, Cynthia L. Multimodal Composition: Resources for Teachers.
             Cresskill, NJ: Hampton, 2007. Print.


This chapter is all about collaboration in multimodal assignments. I like the fact that this is addressed, because I was worried about this when reading the last chapter. Collaborating within multimodal assignments sounds great in theory, but when you actually have to work with someone else on something that has multiple layers, it can be an extremely complicated process. 


This chapter cites the many benefits of collaboration, such as "emotional rewards and the learning that occurs when group members discuss ideas that are difficult to qualify or trace back to their sources." The chapter goes on to say that, while collaborating can be great, teachers have to facilitate it and make sure everything is going well throughout. I think this is wonderful in theory, but I'm confused about the need for group work when working on multimodal compositions. In most classrooms, especially college classrooms, students seem to delegate and divide as far as group work is concerned-- they don't have time to meet with their classmates in the library, because they have full time jobs and maybe live far away from campus. I just really have never understood the need for group work, though I've had it in all my classes. 


One thing I like about this chapter is the fact that it addresses the question of access. On page 41, group work is cited as being a great idea, because it allows students to "... use time, space, and technological resources effectively." This is very true, especially in a high school setting. If there are only 5 computers for 20 students, group work is absolutely necessary. I can definitely see this advantage. 


I'd like to know more about successful group work scenarios. Mostly, I've found that students have a generally negative perception of group work. That's a shame, since it's required in just about every class. How can this be turned around?

Chapter 3: Composing Multimodal Assignments

Selfe, Cynthia L. Multimodal Composition: Resources for Teachers.
             Cresskill, NJ: Hampton, 2007. Print.


This chapter covers the issues of promoting successful multimodal assignments. This means "help(ing) teachers plan for and undertake assignments that can yield not only print essays, but also audio projects, video projects, and projects that combine the modalities of sound, image, and word. It extends the discussion begun in Chapter 2 by offering a third sample assignment that leaves the choice of composing modality open to students" (29). 


I like the fact that this chapter's goal is to expand students' thinking about composing as we know it. Because of the huge strides that have been made in technology and the composing process, it's important to make sure that time is taken to help students understand that classroom compositions aren't the fixed entity that they once were. There are all kinds of ways to compose now, and teachers should share these ways with students at every possible level and through every possible medium. 


Something I'm confused about is the fact that, on page 32, there is a large paragraph about using group work for this type of multimodal composition. That's a great idea in theory, but I have found that in group work, student usually split up the work according to what they're already good at. This doesn't do much for students in the way of learning. How can teachers encourage time-strapped students to try out things that may take longer, just for the sake of learning?


I'd like to know more about peer review within multimodal composition (pg. 36). This seems like it could potentially be really complicated. How can teachers make this work?

Chapter 2: Words, Audio, Video: Composing and the Processes of Production

Selfe, Cynthia L. Multimodal Composition: Resources for Teachers.

             Cresskill, NJ: Hampton, 2007. Print.

This chapter talks about using audio and video as part of the composing process. I was really excited to read this chapter, because I personally dread having to do audiovisual projects, and I was interested in getting some perspectives on how teachers can make this a less intimidating experience for their students.

Something I really like about this chapter is the fact that it addresses the challenges associated with using audio and video in the composing classroom. "Teaching students to compose audio or video essays also poses new and unfamiliar challenges to many teachers and students. For instance, teachers who assign only alphabetic essays can anticipate that students have considerable experience choosing topics for written essays (17). I think that addressing the fact that teachers have anxiety about using this format is helpful. Sometimes students feel that they're the only ones who have trepidation about trying new things. Knowing that teachers also have issues using this format shows that it's something that needs further exploration, especially in the beginning phases to get everyone more accustomed to it. I am confused about why there isn't more of this in place already

Something I would like to know more about is the notion that students are comfortable and familiar with all forms of writing technology. "teachers... can generally count on their students being familiar with, and having access to, some common forms of writing technology: pencils, pens, computers and word-processing programs." While pretty much all students can use pencils and pens, a lot still have issues of access and skill-level when it comes to word processing programs or other forms of composing. My fear is that, as new technologies emerge, we will forget that some students still aren't proficient in the basics, like MS Word, etc.

Brain Rule #7: Sleep well, think well

This chapter was all about sleeping and how important it is to get the proper amount of sleep. Getting the right amount of sleep is vital, because your brain works better when it's rested. In addition, this chapter goes into the fact that wanting afternoon naps is a natural human tendency. This was awesome to know, because I'm ready for a nap about 99% of the time-- it's so comforting to know that this means I'm a normal person!

I really loved Glogster. I played with it forever, because it was such a delightful interface. I liked putting in videos, pictures, and text-- It was so easy to make the Glogster poster attractive, and I know that students would really enjoy using this. You don't really need to watch a tutorial video, because it's easy to just jump into this technology. That's something I appreciate in a technology, and so would students.

Contrasts: Teaching and Learning about Writing in Traditional and Computer Classrooms

Palmquist, Mike, Kate Kiefer, James Hartvigsen, and Barbara Goodlew.

                Computers in the Composition Classroom: a Critical Sourcebook.

                Ed. Michelle Sidler, Elizabeth O. Smith, and Richard Morris. Boston:

                Bedford/St. Martins, 2008. 251-70. Print.

This chapter focuses on the breakout issues that should be further studied as far as the challenges teachers have when balancing both traditional and computer-based writing classes.

I like this chapter because it makes some really excellent points about computer-based courses versus more traditional courses. For example, it points out that in technology-based courses, teachers have to take on different roles, students treat the classroom as a work site and interact more with their peers. The attitudes of both students and teachers are different when in a technology-based course rather than a more traditional one. These are all points that go against the notion that we can simply plug computers into traditional classrooms. So many differences occur, that it's obvious that teachers need to adopt a new philosophy when using technology in these types of courses.

I am confused by the statement made by Anita the teacher on page 257. She said that she expected more from students in her computer classrooms than from those in her traditional classrooms.

"Teaching in the regular classroom, I feel the need to orchestrate much more. 'Okay, we're going to do this, this, this, and this...' In the computer classroom, we always have a mission."

Why is there the notion that computer classrooms require less instruction for students than traditional classrooms? In many cases, I would think a technology-heavy classroom would require more instruction, because students might not know what they're doing right away.

I'd like to know more about the concept brought up on pg. 263. One teacher said she was really resistant to using technology at first, because "there is a point where it really slowed me down and we didn't get much done for about two weeks..." I wonder how many teachers disregard technology as an option because it will cause them to deviate from their standard schedule. It makes sense that they wouldn't want to, especially if they're getting pressure from their administration to adhere to a certain schedule. If a lot of teachers have this attitude, how can advances ever be made?

Thinking about Multimodality: Takayoshi & Selfe

Takayoshi, Pamela. "Chapter 1." Multimodal Composition: Resources for Teachers. 
                By Cynthia L. Selfe. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton, 2007. Print.
In chapter 1 of Multimodal Composition: Resources for Teachers, Takayoshi and Selfe cite that times are changing, especially in terms of the way we now put words on a page. In the past, writing was very straightfoward-- black words on a white page with sensible and expected formatting. Now, because of the multimodality of our compositions, we can branch out into countless types of publications. It's important for teachers to realize that they have to be responsible enough to let their students know about these multimodal opportunities, and expose them to chances to use them whenever possible. 


I like this text because it really addresses an important issue. Like a lot of other texts we've read, it goes into the problem of teachers wanting to use new technologies, but not really knowing how to incorporate them. This is due to lots of reasons, like available class time, student access, lack of knowledge about new technologies in general, and levels of individual student learning. I really like the Wysocki quote that says, "To be responsible teachers, we need to help our students (as well as ourselves) learn how different choices in visual arrangement in all texts (on screen and off) encourage different kinds of meaning making and encourage us to take up." This is a great observation, because it proves that not only should be embrace new types of modalities in writing, but we should realize that these different types of modalities encourage new writing experiences that provide for unique and different learning. Realizing this could make teachers more excited about embracing them, and will definitely excite students-- something new is always exciting. 


What confuses me is teacher resistance to multimodal composing. The chapter states, "Today, many teachers of English composition worry about the effects of computers and the increasingly vernacular expressions
of multimodality that digital environments have encouraged." The chapter goes on to say that multimodality isn't limited to digital texts, and has actually been going on for quite some time-- think textbooks with pictures, etc. I just have trouble understanding all this resistance. Is it a problem of all the students being able to grasp or benefit from this technology? Do teachers feel uncomfortable straying from time honored teaching practices?


I'd like to know more about the following question found within the chapter: "Why should English composition faculty teach multimodal composing? Shouldn’t we stick to teaching writing and let video production faculty teach video? Art and design faculty teach about visual images? Audio production faculty teach about sound?"
This is a problem I've come across a lot in a research project I'm doing in another class. This project is all about the lack of word processor training among older adult students in the community college environment. The big debate is, "whose job is it to teach them?" Nobody wants to do it, but everyone wants it done. Why is this always such a problem?

Brain Rules Ch 6: Remember to Repeat

This week, I used ZooBurst to do my Brain Rules notetaking challenge. I think ZooBurst is a great technology. It takes the whole concept of associating images with ideas to a new level. Associating images with text really helps me remember the material, and I love the cool pop-up book format. It's colorful, fun, easy-to-use, and allows for easy manipulation of text.

Brain Rules Chapter 6 is all about remembering to repeat information, so that it sticks in your long-term memory. I thought this chapter was super interesting, because it reminded me of the fact that repeating things really does help you remember them in the long run, and it's important to remember this critical step in the learning process. This chapter also made me realize that we need to make students take this step in their learning, and repeat info at regular intervals-- not just expect them to do the majority of their learning at home.