Week 4 Reading Response
Prompt 1:
Write about your experiences as a writing teacher or student of writing. Do these readings speak to your experience teaching/learning writing with technology? Which issues are missing? Which issues are overemphasized?
From the standpoint of a student of writing, the readings seemed to have a good handle on the effect of technology on the learning and teaching of composition. The Boyle paper seemed to be against the use of technology, but his concerns were restricted to technology being used to replace tried and true teaching techniques. The other papers dealt primarily with the place technology has in augmenting current teaching techniques, whether to help standardize curriculum, implement web publishing or introduce assemblage.
Where Boyle’s concern is with technology reducing classrooms to game shows, the other readings seem to be more concerned with how and to what extent should technology be introduced into pedagogy. In fact, Maurinello et. al. are not concerned with technology supplanting conventional teaching but with it displacing conventions.
From a student stance, I’m in favor of limited technological introductions into FYC classes. I think that if my freshman comp class had included too much technology (HTML, FTP, etc.), I might not have had as much time to learn the core principles of composition, which I think of as learning to organize and express thoughts and ideas in the written word. And I think that without that, the technology for expressing that composition in new forms is meaningless. It’s like taking time out of a painting class to teach students how to make frames. I also agree with the idea of tracking classes to allow some areas of specialization, but only once they have a strong foundation in the core principles of writing.
One thing that I thought that was missing was teamwork in the use of technology. One of the core ideas in all the papers was collaboration, but in strictly a classroom or administration sense. The first night we did HTML, the first thing we did was pair up. Seems like that would be a topic worth discussing.
- Maysel Markham
Prompt one from week 2
I just saw this looking through the site. I did not know about the reading responses at that time since I wasn’t there for the first meeting. I figured better late than never. I noticed narrative was the centerpiece for all the writers I got to. This made the readings difficult because the author’s pieces mixed together when you though about them. The authors tended to use first hand experiences in the narrative but usually did not claim to be an expert on the material. Even with this claim, the narrative aspect gave more credit to the authors. I tend to listen more to somebody who has had experiences with a subject than one who has heard about it. They all went over different items of technological advancements with dates and what they thought the outcome would be. This did make the pieces more interesting then if they just plug a bunch of statistics into a paper. People can connect with an author more if the article seems to be written by a person instead of a computer. -Chris
Getting Started in the Classroom
Last school year I taught ENC 1101 and 1102 here at USF, and in the Spring especially I started to experiment with using various technologies. I created Wikis for each of my classes and had some tremendous successes. For instance, my students created collaborative fiction pieces we called “Wiki Novels,” and some of those worked out extremely well. However, there were also frustrations. You know how “wiki” is Hawaiian for “easy” and/or “quick?” Well, sometimes that isn’t so true. When I first tried to explain how to use the classroom Wiki to my students, I thought I would show them its ease by having a student – picked at random – walk through the process. After a few bumps on the road, everyone learned what they needed to do (and some learned more than I taught them), but not before the aforementioned random students sighed “Wikis are hard.” Ouch. Is that the irony Boyle is talking about? Here though is not an incident of technology failing in the way Boyle writes. Boyle writes that technology fails in the classroom because it hides “process.” Here was just the opposite: technology failing because process was in the foreground. I can foresee two problems with this use of technology. One is that students have a hard time understanding how to use it: we still learning wordpress, for instance. Second, it predominates class time. However, if the technology contributes to the learning of writing and critical thinking as Mauriello, et al points out then that would directly contradict Boyle’s objections. However, Mauriello observes that technology sometimes failed them. It got in their way, taking up to much class time, just as it did that day in class with me. The trick then is to minimize the amount of time one needs to use to teach technology, and maximize the critical thinking element that accompanies learning technology. Otherwise, Boyle is right when he argues that “the more time we spend focused on the false lights, refracted angles, varnish, and tinsel of artificial media, the less time we spend reading and thinking about each other and the world around us” (625). – Quentin Vieregge
“Not all bits are created equal”: Summarizing Boyle
Frank Boyle uses scathing irony, personal reflection, and careful reflection on personal experience to argue against the immersion of technology into our college classrooms. Boyle’s article begins with a reference to Swift, who apparently ridiculed his contemporaries for believing that knowledge dissemination has “‘entirely changed’ because Moderns have discovered that information may be collected and delivered in huge quantities” (82). His reference to Swift reminded me of Carl Sagan’s quotation, “Not all bits are created equal.” In this article, Boyle suggests that technology hides how humans create knowledge in its effort to provide speed and efficiency. In order to argue this point Boyle recounts an educational conference he attended where IBM salesmen and their contracted specialists tried to sale a variety of classroom technologies to administrative officials from his university. He begins with a clever rhetorical tool, first admitting that he “will be arguing in the most discredited of all manners, that is, by way of anecdote” but establishes his ethos by pointing out his expertise in the field. Here, then, is the educated malcontent. The remaining portion of the article toggles back and forth between reflection and narration. He begins by describing the unassuming nature of the IBM building’s exterior and then the more intimidating inner architecture. The inner architecture is complemented by the power relationship the salesmen have to their clients. Their clients wear first name shirt tags, but their salesmen insist on being called “professors.” (620). One sees an anti-collaborative atmosphere already brewing, not to mention subtle disrespect. These “professors” also refer to themselves as “talking heads,” a term Boyle finds disconcerting, but what he finds even more disconcerting is the implication they give that students must be entertained rather than educated: “We need computers in the classroom so that we can “get and hold” the attention of our students. What we need, that is, is to bring Sesame Street to the college classroom” (621). Each salesman seemed to assume that technology is like riding a tiger: one cannot afford to get off. If every other university was buying this technology, then why not Boyle’s university? Could they afford not to? Boyle points out that the technological functions advertised actually hide the educational process. By editing on a screen, the “process” of writing is diminished. By showing mathematical calculations on a screen, students cannot see the process by which those numbers were constructed. Boyle even observes that the technology used in IBM’s pitch broke down at one point, and concludes, “By now it was clear that the effectiveness of these preposterous demonstrations was beside the point of this presentation” (624). The message is what Homer Simpson would call “edutainment.” Boyle’s argument convinces the reader that technology can be very detrimental, but I was not convinced of its counterproductive nature as Boyle himself was. - Quentin Vieregge
I think I am a blond…
I was looking for my postings. To my dismay, I could not find them. I search and search, but I could not find them. I know I “saved” them on our blog. What went wrong? I was going to e-mail professor Zoetewey to get help. As I was writing the message, I saw several links with titles very familar to what I wrote. In fact, It was my work. I found it. In my “blondness” I have been saving all my work to the blog thinking that it would post it to our blog. I was wrong. Clicking the “Save” button only saved my work; it did not publish it. I have to click on “Publish” so that my post is added to our blog.
I just want to apologize to the class. I did not want to give the impression that was not contributing to our very cool and interesting blog. From now and on, I will be sure to click on the “publish” Box.
See you tomorrow.
P.S. I hope nobody is offend by the blond trop.
Summaries on Kalmback by Jimmy Martell
Key Points in “From Liquid Paper to Typewriters: Some Historical Perspectives on Technology in the Classroom”.
James Kalmbach opens with a reference to the “relentless pace of change in the computer industry (57). He also shares a coping technique: staying in touch with history. By staying in touch with history, “we can better prepare ourselves for coping with innovations that might seem revolutionary.
Historical perspectives can shed light on the relatively recent phenomena of computer-supported classrooms and on the teaching of writing with, computers in these rooms. Placing computers in composition classrooms may be relatively new, but using technology in innovative ways to support the teaching of reading and writing is much older dating back to 1880s.
The articles also shares research conducted on typewriters and the effect it had on students. Studies showed that students, who used typewriters in composition, wrote more, wrote longer, reduced the number of mechanical errors, and improved attitudes towards writing. Further more, the research revealed no significant statistical difference in quality of text written with a typewriter as compared to those written by hand (57).
Wood and freeman performed a study. It tried to measure the influences of the typewriter in the elementary classroom. The experiment use standard comparative methodology such as standardize test scores. The experiment was supplemented with qualitative data, including student writing samples and assessments by both teachers and students of the typewriter’s pedagogical value.
The quantitative results showed typewriters had little effect on achievement. However, the study showed that students did more original writing and wrote longer. The survey of teachers revealed that students did more writing, reading, and researching. Student also had a better attitude about writing. Writing became favorable and more satisfying through the typewriter.
Yet, in lieu of the positive results of the typewriter, it was not was not incorporated in the classroom due to dominate educational approaches of the time, the humanist approach, the child-centered approach, social reconstruction, and scientific management. The most likely for the reason for the typewriters disappearance is: “their most powerful findings aligned them with marginalized approaches to literacy instruction. The typewriter was a technology that fostered socially based and child-centered approaches to education. Consequently, the voices have had little impact on administrators and teachers whose primary interest was improving test scores or preserving great books” He argues that the same criterion is used to evaluate the use of the computer in the classroom.
He also argues that unless we are clear about the pedagogical advantages of computer-supported classrooms, and unless we are willing to continually articulate these advantages, computer-in-the-classroom could in fact go to the route of typewriter-in-the-classroom. In essence, technology is grounded on the awareness of how new technology reflects old patterns of using technology face the same political challenges and bureaucratic obstacles that teachers have always faced (63).
Prompt 1: Narratives
With attention given to Baron’s “From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technologies” and Ohmann’s “Literacy, Technology, and Monopoly Capital,” narratives are neither the center of the pieces nor the dramatic example that calls for the pieces. Instead, narratives serve as hooks, explanations of concepts, as well as
Prompt one: My experience with Writing and Technology
I am fairly new at being a English major. To be exact, I officially declared my major to English in fall semester of 2006. Previously, I was a medical science major. Most of my work consisted of mathematical equations, formulas, and a lot of memorization. As a medical science student, I was required to take Composition I and II. The pedagogical methodologies used were essays and research papers. The emphasis was on thesis statements, introductions, conclusions, supporting ideas, and documenting sources. These courses also focus on grammar, punctuation, word choice, syntax, etc. In other words, this was a typical composition course. My professors did not incorporate the use of the computer nor did they use multimedia tools for teaching. However, I did use computers outside the class to type my essays and assignments. That was the extent of my involvement with computers and writing.
As a technical writer, most of my writing classes used the same methodologies, with the exception of Professor Conner’s Technical Writing course. At the time, Professor Conner just graduated with his PhD in rhetoric and composition from the Penn State. He was eccentric and very odd. He was the professor that introduced me to the Wiki.
To use Jackson Pollock’s words, Professor Conner was an “Author, Advocate, and Technician” he was a die hard fan of the Wiki as a medium to teach the course. His Wiki space was (to use modern day vernacular) pimped out. In addition to Syllabus, calendar, and assignments, his Wiki had links to every possible writing resource a student would need. It was obvious from the start that he invested a lot of time into his wiki and expected us to do the same.
Using the Wiki for the first time was very difficult. To aid us in learning the program, two whole class sessions were allocated for students to learn how to use the medium. He was patient and encouraging while we slowly became familiar with the program. Pervious knowledge of HTML was useful in certain applications but for the most part the Wiki had a language of it own. To be honest, I struggled all semester trying to use the Wiki. If was not for my more Wiki-efficient comrades I don’t know if I would have ever made it through the course.
Professor Conner was very progressive in his thoughts about writing. He wasn’t really concerned about ownership of the work. He was totally cool with other students revising and change other students work. In fact, it was mandatory for students to revise other peoples work. He was excellent in how he used the medium to teach audience, tone, voice, etc. All he really wanted us to do was write. I think he was successful in accomplishing his teaching goals. The Wiki made it very easy for students to collaborate and work together.
Over all, it was a frustrating and challenging course. Aside from the difficulty I had learning how to use the Wiki, it turned out to be a positive writing experience. I recognize the advantages of using the Wiki to make writing more social.
It seems like my writing experience touches on several of the key issues in our reading for this week such as HTML, difficulty with computer and technology, and ownership. The issues in our readings did not seem like a major issue in my writing experience. I am sure these issues will have more value and place in my life as I continue my writing adventures.
Reading Response: Prompt 2 by Jimmy Martell
Reponse to Prompt: II
A common theme in the readings for class is the role of technology in writing. The texts goes into detail about how writing has evolved and what role technology has contributed to the evolution of writing. In the essay “Evolution of the Computer and Writing Conference, the Second Decade” and “From Liquid Paper to Typewrites: Some Historical Perspectives on Technology in the Classroom” share similar reports on technology and writing.
Gerard introduces us to the “modern era” of writing and how it has expanded from traditional forms of composition. According to Gerard, writing encompasses “PowerPoint presentations, blogs, iMovies, Zines, and MOO rooms, among other documents” (Gerard pg 67). These new writing creations challenged the norms of conventional writing approaches.
In addition to teaching thesis statements and semicolons in the classroom, time is allocated to instruct students how to use multimedia technologies. The introduction of new technology has created uncertainty to the gatekeepers of the writing tradition. The main concern is wheather these new technologies are conducive for teaching traditional writing for example: thesis statements, grammar, punctuation, etc (Gerard pg 68). Gerard incorporation of technology was validated over time and later became “cutting edge”.
Kalmbach article shares a story of failed validation. In his article, the Wood and Freeman study was featured (An Experimental Study of the Educational Influences of the Typewriter in the Elementary School Classroom). The study’s goal was to monitor the influences of the typewriter in the classroom. In short, the study revealed a number of positive influences the typewriter had in a classroom setting. In lieu of the advantages of the typewriter, it disappeared from the classroom. This was mainly due to the criteria used to evaluate educational methods. The results from the study were considered marginal. The gatekeepers that monitored methodologies did not considered the results of the study to bear weight. The end result was the disappearance of the typewriter. Both articles share how new classroom technologies need to validate themselves as reliable pedagogical tools in the classroom.
The history also shows a slow and gradually acceptance of technology in writing pedagogy. Overtime, writing and technology (computer along with multimedia tools) have become inseparable, wedded over time, a better or for worst relationship. Both agree that the computer will continue to be integrated in the classroom. Gerard is more optimistic about the future of technology in the classroom. He embraces the challenges of technology in the classroom and its potential possibility. Kalmbach also embraces technology and believes it will continue to be integrated in the classroom as long advocates of technology continually articulate the advantages of technology.
Aside from the above, technology changes bring new demands. Both articles share how students along with professor have to “scramble to be up to date with new versions of programs, web designing, trends in rhetoric and composition (Gerard 69). Keeping up with the changes of the computer industry is an on-going never ending task (Kalmbach pg57). Another common thread among the readings was the expensive nature of these new technologies and the challenges that may pose to some segments of society. Gerard mentioned that most people attending his conference were white. This observation is a micro example of a disparity that is evident on the macro levels of society. Access to technology is limited and often times most accessible to people of a higher socioeconomic status.
For the most part, the articles agree. The most notable difference is Kalmbach’s concern about the disappearance of the computer if its advantages are not articulated and accepted by the gatekeepers.
