Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Response to Technology and the Teaching of Writing
Clearly since the publishing of this article technology has progressed. Charles Moran talks of computers in school as “home computers- large, clunky piece[s] of machinery, obtrusively the staple of our computer equipped writing classrooms” (204). But they are not so obtrusive anymore. While our writing classrooms- now termed “labs-” are still hampered by large, immobile computers, the majority of students are not, for their personal computers are relatively small and can be (and are ) carried everywhere. In fact, it seems the smaller our computers get, the more intimate and “personal” they feel. Take our cell phones, for instance, we/students carry them as an extension of us. We install individualized ringtones, pick the color, style, carrying case, jewels, glitter, screen wallpaper, etc. for these tiny computerized devices.The trend hasn’t stopped there. You know those “clunky pieces of machinery” that Moran talks of? Well they are now just as individualized as our ringtones.
I remember a time when there was only a small selection of laptop/desktop computers, and even as the selection grew we/I had to purchase the computer as is. Sure, we could select our “personal” desktop from a list of images, but almost nothing else was open for adjustment. Now, like cell phones, we can choose different colors/prints to cover the outside of our PCs and can literally make our own desktops with the help of the internet. Yes, the computer is now truly “personal,” for in many ways it is its owner. But this presents a new problem when we talk about technology in the writing classroom.
Moran theorized that as computers got smaller and more powerful, teachers would teach, and students would learn, assisted by technology that worked “unobtrusively” in the classroom (204). Well, not quite. The presence of the laptop-the “small computer” is obtrusive. Frequently, instead of being used as tool to engage with class work, it is used as a distraction from it. I have watched my classmates spend entire semesters, in every single lecture, playing video games that simulate some kind of otherworldly war; I have seen students pull out blackberrys and palm pilots after they were asked by a professor to put their computer away and focus on the lesson; I have watched peers read emails, chat online, and yes, even shop for and purchase lingerie for their girlfriends in history. The computer is there; it’s small, but in no way is it facilitating learning- at least not the kind of learning I think Moran had in mind.
What, then, is the role of the computer in classroom? How does a teacher structure a class to ensure that students are engaging with technology in ways that support the given lesson? I don’t know if they can. Because the size of the computer (and its name -“personal”) makes us/the student the sole owner of it and of its contents, we are often reluctant to let others tell us what we should do and how we should work with our computer, because, after all, it’s not theirs! True, there are times when computers in the classroom are important, not taking away from the ways they enhance the lesson through adding audio/visual material, demonstrating tasks, performing calculations, etc., but should the pros be weighed against the cons? I believe so. There needs to be, for the sake of my ADD and my sanity, some kind of regulation regarding the use of computers in class, that is, computers should only be present if they are part of the course or lesson and are required by the instructor. If they are primarily used as a distraction, than perhaps it’s better if teachers teach in school and students learn at home how to use the technology in a setting where the pc can be as unobtrusive or as obtrusive as desired.
I remember a time when there was only a small selection of laptop/desktop computers, and even as the selection grew we/I had to purchase the computer as is. Sure, we could select our “personal” desktop from a list of images, but almost nothing else was open for adjustment. Now, like cell phones, we can choose different colors/prints to cover the outside of our PCs and can literally make our own desktops with the help of the internet. Yes, the computer is now truly “personal,” for in many ways it is its owner. But this presents a new problem when we talk about technology in the writing classroom.
Moran theorized that as computers got smaller and more powerful, teachers would teach, and students would learn, assisted by technology that worked “unobtrusively” in the classroom (204). Well, not quite. The presence of the laptop-the “small computer” is obtrusive. Frequently, instead of being used as tool to engage with class work, it is used as a distraction from it. I have watched my classmates spend entire semesters, in every single lecture, playing video games that simulate some kind of otherworldly war; I have seen students pull out blackberrys and palm pilots after they were asked by a professor to put their computer away and focus on the lesson; I have watched peers read emails, chat online, and yes, even shop for and purchase lingerie for their girlfriends in history. The computer is there; it’s small, but in no way is it facilitating learning- at least not the kind of learning I think Moran had in mind.
What, then, is the role of the computer in classroom? How does a teacher structure a class to ensure that students are engaging with technology in ways that support the given lesson? I don’t know if they can. Because the size of the computer (and its name -“personal”) makes us/the student the sole owner of it and of its contents, we are often reluctant to let others tell us what we should do and how we should work with our computer, because, after all, it’s not theirs! True, there are times when computers in the classroom are important, not taking away from the ways they enhance the lesson through adding audio/visual material, demonstrating tasks, performing calculations, etc., but should the pros be weighed against the cons? I believe so. There needs to be, for the sake of my ADD and my sanity, some kind of regulation regarding the use of computers in class, that is, computers should only be present if they are part of the course or lesson and are required by the instructor. If they are primarily used as a distraction, than perhaps it’s better if teachers teach in school and students learn at home how to use the technology in a setting where the pc can be as unobtrusive or as obtrusive as desired.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Response to The Pedagogy of Writing Across the Curriculum
I now know I have experienced the pedagogy of WAC, in that “WAC focuses not on writing skills per se, but on teaching both the content of the discipline and the particular discourse features used in writing about that content.” Before this course, I have never noted- beyond likes and dislikes- the pedagogies favored by my professors. I have gone through school with blinders on, completlting the assignments, learning the material, but possibly missing the goal/deeper purpose of the instructors’ tasks or classroom structures. This article, specifically, has allowed me to see the presence of WAC in my undergraduate coursework and how it has helped me.
Reading the latest arguments in the field and responding to them either through journals, blogs, or study questions is very much in keeping with WAC and is the foundation of many of my English classes. The reading tasks, which are continuous from the start to finish of the semester, serve to initiate me into the field of discourse by immersing me in the language of the discipline. In formulating a response, I must take on that language (in some cases/at best) or at the very least, must actively engage with it. I am learning how to speak/write in the field through the practice and presence of a particular discourse. For example, one of my courses requires that I complete “Fieldwork” for each unit. Here, I must employ similar research methods, ask similar questions, and summarize my findings in a similar manner as the academe’s work I have read. Clearly such an exercise is meant to help me “try on” the discourse of the field in an engaging way; for in these assignments I become the expert and the teacher becomes the guide. The work I produce is evaluated on what it communicates; given the structure of the assignment, I am forced to adopt the features of the discourse to communicate effectively.
I note some difficulty when am forced to write in new discourse communities that do not apply the principles of WAC outlined above- do not immerse me in the language of the discourse through reading or writing exercises and, instead, assume that through a lecture based pedagogy I can formulate a paper in the discourse required. I can, but certainly not without doing research/fact-finding and paying careful attention to verbs. If, on the other hand, a reading or written introduction to the discourse accompanied the lecture, as WAC suggests, it would be possible to produce papers in the correct “tongue” with more ease and clarity.
Considering the issue of producing non-graded work, which WAC advocates and I have also experienced, I find this helpful but not essential to student success. In life and certainly in the classroom, everything one produces is evaluated. We never exist in a space void of judgment, nor will such a space occur in the professional world. While I understand the freedom such a system affords, and enjoy that freedom myself (in some instances), when I write for school I am never divorced from the reality that my work will be judged, graded, or evaluated in some fashion. But such an acknowledgement is not bad; it doesn’t hinder my performance, if anything, it makes me aware of an audience and more likely to use the desired discourse.
Reading the latest arguments in the field and responding to them either through journals, blogs, or study questions is very much in keeping with WAC and is the foundation of many of my English classes. The reading tasks, which are continuous from the start to finish of the semester, serve to initiate me into the field of discourse by immersing me in the language of the discipline. In formulating a response, I must take on that language (in some cases/at best) or at the very least, must actively engage with it. I am learning how to speak/write in the field through the practice and presence of a particular discourse. For example, one of my courses requires that I complete “Fieldwork” for each unit. Here, I must employ similar research methods, ask similar questions, and summarize my findings in a similar manner as the academe’s work I have read. Clearly such an exercise is meant to help me “try on” the discourse of the field in an engaging way; for in these assignments I become the expert and the teacher becomes the guide. The work I produce is evaluated on what it communicates; given the structure of the assignment, I am forced to adopt the features of the discourse to communicate effectively.
I note some difficulty when am forced to write in new discourse communities that do not apply the principles of WAC outlined above- do not immerse me in the language of the discourse through reading or writing exercises and, instead, assume that through a lecture based pedagogy I can formulate a paper in the discourse required. I can, but certainly not without doing research/fact-finding and paying careful attention to verbs. If, on the other hand, a reading or written introduction to the discourse accompanied the lecture, as WAC suggests, it would be possible to produce papers in the correct “tongue” with more ease and clarity.
Considering the issue of producing non-graded work, which WAC advocates and I have also experienced, I find this helpful but not essential to student success. In life and certainly in the classroom, everything one produces is evaluated. We never exist in a space void of judgment, nor will such a space occur in the professional world. While I understand the freedom such a system affords, and enjoy that freedom myself (in some instances), when I write for school I am never divorced from the reality that my work will be judged, graded, or evaluated in some fashion. But such an acknowledgement is not bad; it doesn’t hinder my performance, if anything, it makes me aware of an audience and more likely to use the desired discourse.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Response to Feminist Pedagogy and Service Learning Pedagogy in the Teaching of Composition
As Jarratt notes “it wasn’t until the 1980’s that feminists began to make contributions to composition pedagogy with broad impact,” and in stating that such arose as an “alternative institutional site –one responsive to student needs and working against the grain of an elitist literary culture that had dominated English departments” and focused on egalitarian politics, I am certain that my writing and education has been influenced by feminist pedagogy. I now have something new to add to my cultural quilt.
While completing Kassandra’s quilt, I noted my gender is a primary influence on my writing, seen in my use of dialogue, favoring of female heroines and “feminist pronouncements,” but what I failed to see-what this essay helps illuminate- is that those feminist pronouncements have likely been nurtured by the larger culture of education, of composition pedagogy in which I have been raised. Their presence is subtle, so subtle I did not notice it until now.
In my writing, I often raise issues of racial and social inequities and question in whose interest do my texts-do those texts I am responding to- serve? Such approaches are common in feminist pedagogy. Jarrat states: “Questions guiding this pedagogy ask of composition: …In whose interests do they operate? Who gets to learn it?” In this way, before I even begin to put words to the page, having been conditioned by a number of courses which employ this pedagogy- some overt, some covert (reflectively)- my culture dictates my stance- my quilt forms the thoughts, the lenses that contextualize my words.
I must then ask: How much of writing is a reflection of gender? Can one tell my sex through my text, even if the topic is “generic”? What does this mean? What are the ramifications (inside and outside of academia) when one can be identified by their gender through writing? Considering the mergence of essentialism into composition and the scholars who argue in favor of “rhetorical approaches to identify categories such as woman” when analyzing texts, I think these are very real questions to ponder. What is “woman’s writing,” and how will it be received or judged accordingly?
Society’s stereotypes/ ideals of womanhood certainly impact composition, and in so being, they impact the composition classroom, for not only is “gendered writing” subject to them, but female professors are as well: Many teachers of feminist composition and other models, Jarrat points out, struggle to define themselves as more than stereotypes. In discussion based classrooms where personal anecdotes are used to engage students, teachers become type cast as “motherly figures,” providing nurturing and collaborating with students with their best interests at heart.
But as many question : Why does such instruction imply “mothering” and furthermore, is this image of teacher as mother used to strip away power and intellect in order to construct a more socially acceptable and less-threatening role for the female instructor? Possibly. Pop culture certainly loves to paint the effective female teacher as the affectionate one. Just look at movies like “Dangerous Minds” and “Freedom Writers,” where the heroines are more emotionally involved than "instructionally" involved with their students, implying females are effective in matters of the heart, not of “the academy.” On the flip side, if instructors of this pedagogy aren’t mothers, they are “feminazis” who seek male dominance or submission.
My point in all this (if I have one) is that culture certainly influences writing, academia, pedagogy, etc. In this case, one cannot help but see the impact of gender (and society’s conception of it) on education and personal development. Taking a step back and in reading this essay, I realize that my cultural quilt is even bigger, even more expansive than I ever imagined. There are so my nuances, so many subversive ways in which our culture becomes the defining factor in who we are and what we write and why it is almost immeasurable. Feminist Pedagogy and how it is taken up or rejected in our schools and in our writing is one small example of how larger social movements impact the individual in ways the individual may never be aware of- never covering themselves in the reverse side of the quilt.
* * *
Service Learning Pedagogy has much in common with its "brother/sister" pedagogies of feminism and cultural studies, in that , its goal is to produce better citizens who "take responsibility for communal welfare." At the heart of each model is this desire for equality, democracy, awareness. The discipline seems almost as driven to effect "social transformation" as it to seeking transformation in/through writing. Obviously, classical thought and literature is still quite influential, still the model of education today. Julier makes this comparison possible in many ways, the following quote is one example: "[We] see in service learning the appropriate pedagogical complement to educating for civic virtue and democratic citizenship." While I am totally in love with this field for advocating such principles, I can't help but think of the Washington/ DuBois debate: Which is more effective, intellectual pondering or action? Does composition, when taught in the aforementioned models, lead to action? I would say according Julier, Jarrat, and George, absolutely. In some ways, English provides a forum for those, who like me, lack the ruthlessness to play at politics but want to be a player on the stage nonetheless.
"The effort to reach into the composition class with a curriculum aimed at democracy ans social justice is an attempt to make schools function...as radically democratic institutions, with the goal not only of making individual students more successful, but also of making better citizens, citizens in the strongest sense of those who take responsibility for communal welfare. These efforts belong in the composition class because of the rhetorical as well as the practical nature of citizenship and social transformation" (Community Service and Critical Teaching 317). RIGHT ON! But I'm sure others would disagree with me :)
While completing Kassandra’s quilt, I noted my gender is a primary influence on my writing, seen in my use of dialogue, favoring of female heroines and “feminist pronouncements,” but what I failed to see-what this essay helps illuminate- is that those feminist pronouncements have likely been nurtured by the larger culture of education, of composition pedagogy in which I have been raised. Their presence is subtle, so subtle I did not notice it until now.
In my writing, I often raise issues of racial and social inequities and question in whose interest do my texts-do those texts I am responding to- serve? Such approaches are common in feminist pedagogy. Jarrat states: “Questions guiding this pedagogy ask of composition: …In whose interests do they operate? Who gets to learn it?” In this way, before I even begin to put words to the page, having been conditioned by a number of courses which employ this pedagogy- some overt, some covert (reflectively)- my culture dictates my stance- my quilt forms the thoughts, the lenses that contextualize my words.
I must then ask: How much of writing is a reflection of gender? Can one tell my sex through my text, even if the topic is “generic”? What does this mean? What are the ramifications (inside and outside of academia) when one can be identified by their gender through writing? Considering the mergence of essentialism into composition and the scholars who argue in favor of “rhetorical approaches to identify categories such as woman” when analyzing texts, I think these are very real questions to ponder. What is “woman’s writing,” and how will it be received or judged accordingly?
Society’s stereotypes/ ideals of womanhood certainly impact composition, and in so being, they impact the composition classroom, for not only is “gendered writing” subject to them, but female professors are as well: Many teachers of feminist composition and other models, Jarrat points out, struggle to define themselves as more than stereotypes. In discussion based classrooms where personal anecdotes are used to engage students, teachers become type cast as “motherly figures,” providing nurturing and collaborating with students with their best interests at heart.
But as many question : Why does such instruction imply “mothering” and furthermore, is this image of teacher as mother used to strip away power and intellect in order to construct a more socially acceptable and less-threatening role for the female instructor? Possibly. Pop culture certainly loves to paint the effective female teacher as the affectionate one. Just look at movies like “Dangerous Minds” and “Freedom Writers,” where the heroines are more emotionally involved than "instructionally" involved with their students, implying females are effective in matters of the heart, not of “the academy.” On the flip side, if instructors of this pedagogy aren’t mothers, they are “feminazis” who seek male dominance or submission.
My point in all this (if I have one) is that culture certainly influences writing, academia, pedagogy, etc. In this case, one cannot help but see the impact of gender (and society’s conception of it) on education and personal development. Taking a step back and in reading this essay, I realize that my cultural quilt is even bigger, even more expansive than I ever imagined. There are so my nuances, so many subversive ways in which our culture becomes the defining factor in who we are and what we write and why it is almost immeasurable. Feminist Pedagogy and how it is taken up or rejected in our schools and in our writing is one small example of how larger social movements impact the individual in ways the individual may never be aware of- never covering themselves in the reverse side of the quilt.
* * *
Service Learning Pedagogy has much in common with its "brother/sister" pedagogies of feminism and cultural studies, in that , its goal is to produce better citizens who "take responsibility for communal welfare." At the heart of each model is this desire for equality, democracy, awareness. The discipline seems almost as driven to effect "social transformation" as it to seeking transformation in/through writing. Obviously, classical thought and literature is still quite influential, still the model of education today. Julier makes this comparison possible in many ways, the following quote is one example: "[We] see in service learning the appropriate pedagogical complement to educating for civic virtue and democratic citizenship." While I am totally in love with this field for advocating such principles, I can't help but think of the Washington/ DuBois debate: Which is more effective, intellectual pondering or action? Does composition, when taught in the aforementioned models, lead to action? I would say according Julier, Jarrat, and George, absolutely. In some ways, English provides a forum for those, who like me, lack the ruthlessness to play at politics but want to be a player on the stage nonetheless.
"The effort to reach into the composition class with a curriculum aimed at democracy ans social justice is an attempt to make schools function...as radically democratic institutions, with the goal not only of making individual students more successful, but also of making better citizens, citizens in the strongest sense of those who take responsibility for communal welfare. These efforts belong in the composition class because of the rhetorical as well as the practical nature of citizenship and social transformation" (Community Service and Critical Teaching 317). RIGHT ON! But I'm sure others would disagree with me :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
