Annotated Bibliography Balester, Valerie. “The Evolving Computer Classroom for English Studies.” Approaches to Computer Writing Classrooms: Learning from Practical Experience. Ed. Linda Myers. Albany: SUNY Press, 1993. 135-148. Balester discusses the physical space that computers and classrooms occupy. The design of the classroom creates a student or teacher centered environment. Balester details the proscenium plan and the perimeter or peripheral plan. The proscenium plan lends itself to a teacher centered classroom, using the “banking” method and traditional teaching. The physical space the computers occupy blocks conversations between students. The perimeter plan provides for a student centered pedagogy, with no head of the room, a center shared space, but it also causes isolation as students compose alone while facing the wall. I wrote my mid-term for CMW using these ideas, and find them key to decentering a classroom, empowering students, and promoting class discussion. The concepts here are more than physical layouts, they directly impact and should be integrated in a teaching philosophy/pedagogy. Blair, Kris, and Hoy “Paying Attention to Adult Learners Online: The Pedagogy and Politics of Community.” Computers and Composition 23.1 (2007): 32-48. In Blair and Hoy’s article, they address the unique needs of non-traditional students taking online composition classes. The students’ time constraints are alleviated with asynchronous class interaction. What was revealed was the silent work (email) done between students and teacher and between students themselves as well as the perception the administration had/has toward the cost of online course offerings. I hadn’t thought about the politics, constructing an online community in a real sense, and the possible confusion returning students might have about class times (e.g. the student who logged on during “class time” each week, conceiving a different sense of when class work was to take place). The sense of community fostered through emails between students was really exciting to me. I’m sure it helped students work through personal/class difficulties, improving their comprehension of the material and improving student retention. They could bond over work-, family-, and/or classroom-related issues. “Consistent with distance learning and computer-mediated pedagogies that emphasize early dialogue about communication and participation, it is important to help students communicate their expectations and needs to each other and to create venues other than the end-of-term student evaluation for this form of self-reflection and self-assessment” (40). This makes sense to me, as I try to do this in traditional classes anyway, but the reading’s emphasis makes visible the seemingly obvious need to consciously construct methods of creating community, maintaining the community, and adapting to needed change. Blythe, Stuart. “Meeting the Paradox of Computer-Mediated Communication in Writing Instruction.” Teaching Writing With Computers: An Introduction. Eds. Pamela Takayoshi and Brian Huot. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2003. 118-127. Blythe explains CMC, addressing two myths (that it reduces communication and introduces technology into arenas previously void of technology), how it can be used in the writing classroom (nice chart of suggestions on 123, but hardly comprehensive, though that’s not its purpose; good suggestions of “if you want X, then use Y,” which is especially helpful for those less comfortable with technology), and offers questions for consideration. The questions posed were most helpful to me, though reading this article after Yancey’s made it feel as though it were a follow up or an extension of Yancey’s article “The Pleasures of Digital Discussions.” I have no doubt that I’ll start slowly and make the most of my student’s technology skills and knowledge to help fill in my own gaps.
Bolter, Jay David. Writing Space: Computers, Hypertext, and the Remediation of Print. 2nd Ed. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001.
In Bolter’s book Writing Space: Computers, Hypertext, and the Remediation of Print, he begins by quoting Victor Hugo, discussing the printed book as the end not the beginning (1). This illustrates how technology is always been a part of writing (as we could harken back to writing as a technology in and of itself) and is a matter of perspective. Hugo’s character Frollo see’s one thing destroying the other, rather than supplementing. It’s not that printing and literacy would compliment the church, but would undermine the church’s authority (1). An impetus for change, a paradigm shift, writing did change communication as well as provide for independent thought stemming from reading texts. That said paradigm shifts often take time, as seen in how the “printed book” is no longer the “technology” that shifts authority, but computer literacy is shifting power. To be illiterate today is more than not reading the printed word; it’s not being able to function using Google, e-mail, Microsoft Word, etc. at the very least. Those who resist acquiring the new skill sets found in current and emerging technologies will find themselves struggling in the job market. That all said, the purposes for printed text and for hypertext may and may not overlap, depending on the context in which they are used. I’m composing on WordPress, not in Microsoft Word. I’m not cutting and pasting. But how different really are the two options I mention? Not very. More importantly, I’m not writing my thoughts by hand and transcribing them. Yet, while I compose, sitting on my couch and using my TV as a monitor, I’m reading printed text. Does one devalue another? Is one better than another? Or is conceptualizing these mediums as a dichotomy the problem? I think it’s the latter. Yet there is “tension between print and digital forms” (3). Publishing is valued more highly in print (hard copy). Paradigm shifts take time, sometimes.
Bridwell, Lillian S., and Donald Ross. “Integrating Computer into a Writing Curriculum; or, Buying, Beggin, and Building.” The Computer Composition Instruction: A Writer’s Tool. William Wresch, ed. Urbana: NCTE, 1984. 107-119.
Bridwell and Ross address students’ demands for computer literacy, as they shifted their project from a research- and theory-based curriculum to finding, unsuccessfully, computer writing programs of value which did not focus on “drill and practice” (117). The problems they ran into related to scope (too narrow), emphasis (not balanced in all the areas of writing, e.g. it focused on editing, etc.), not readily available, were inflexible, or had little research done relating to how they changed the composing process (107-108). The address the “place of the computer in the writing curriculum,” providing a historical framework for where we were when computers first were being introduced in writing classrooms. Their work relates especially to the concept of having a rhetorical purpose for using a technology as well as a theoretical purpose. In other words, as I see it, it’s not using technology because it’s new or available; it’s using technology because it fits with my pedagogy, achieves a specific purpose, etc.
Burns, Major Hugh. “Recollections of First-Generation Computer-Assisted Prewriting.” The Computer Composition Instruction: A Writer’s Tool. William Wresch, ed. Urbana: NCTE, 1984. 15-33.
Burns addresses the beginning of combining rhetorical arts with computer sciences, forming computer mediated writing. The fear of computers, keyboards, and software was more prevalent than today, he asserts, though I’d some fears are still with us, especially in non-territories—territories of the mind and the imagination” (16), just as technology is a new frontier. Primarily, Burns focuses on how to use computer-assisted rhetorical invention as a pre-writing technique using qualitative methods to reach three goals: creating an artificial on-line situation which would replicate heuristic tensions, resulting “information, perspective, and insight about any topic” (16-17); discovering how writers begin to write; and changing the kind of prewriting assistance students require of their composition teachers (17). This piece is an interesting representation of how computer mediated writing was appropriated 20+ years ago, and it could be used to show not only how the use of computers in the composition classroom has changed and has remained the same.
Davis, Robert L., and Mark F. Shadle. Teaching Multiwriting: Researching and Composing with Multiple Genres, Media, Disciplines, and Cultures. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2007.
Davis and Shadle present a case for moving away from formulaic writing. Their work could be tied to Bill Thelin’s work on non-formulaic writing as well. Furthermore, they suggest that the field of English Studies, specifically writing instruction, be reinvented to include “multiwriting” or writing in multiple forms, including web-based writing, to take the place of traditional research papers. They address the media’s influence on composition- oral composition as seen on televised “diaries” which are not obviously private, analysis of every minute detail as seen in reality television, blogs and other online venues which may or may not utilize monikers and may or may not have public, semi-public, or private setting, and other means of communicating or composing meaning. They also address visual rhetoric and meaning making or composing through visuals as done in photobooks, scrapbooks, etc. which may or may not be tangible (they could be online). There is social critique, motives for social action and change, and examples of exercises teachers can use in the composition classroom. Hocks, Mary. “Teaching and Learning Visual Rhetoric.” Teaching Writing With Computers: An Introduction. Eds. Pamela Takayoshi and Brian Huot. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2003. 202-218. Hocks writes: “The combination of learning how to look, experimenting, getting feedback from technologies, interacting with audiences, and having the tools for revision taught me something–to construct visual meanings and compositions with confidence. This is what good learning practices are supposed to do–engage us in an exploratory process that allows us to experiment” (202). Hocks then takes her experience and, making it relevant to teachers especially, shows how to use it in the classroom. Cool. I hadn’t thought of the reflexivity promoted in digital cameras. of visual displays as constituting a language (203); however, that’s exactly what I teach my students, though framed as meaning making as a socially constructed act. When Hocks talks about visual compositions as “balance, hue, saturation, texture, and scale” (203), the first thought that popped into my mind was white space. White space, black text, and Times New Roman 12 point font–the limits placed on students in traditional text production, though white space is much more. Breaking through the distinctions between “visual culture” and ”print culture” –the “modernist” “binary” thinking that prompted a discussion in 602 a year ago about how students should include a copy of a paper that was free of visual rhetoric if they wanted to also include one with it, since some second graders of portfolios would prefer it that way–seems so needed right now. “Visual rhetoric, like verbal rhetoric, is a system of ongoing dialogue among rhetors, audiences, and dynamic contexts,” focusing “on the multiple modalities and contexts of meaning” (204) seems as if it should be more than needed; it perhaps should be demanded. The conference I presented at two days ago went into great detail about the Future of English Studies. Many forms, often in conflict with one another, were presented and discussed, debated even (it was such fun!), but visual components weren’t discussed at all. They weren’t even mentioned. Why? If visual and electronic cultures helps students engage in “critical dialogue with other students, with the teacher, and with like-minded foks in cyber-space” (204-205), doesn’t it behoove us to consider how to integrate both technology and visual rhetoric into the composition classroom? I couldn’t help but think of on-line scrapbooking, of face-book and myspace, of you-tube, of the many ways students can create their identities (Second Life anyone?). Isn’t the rhetoric found there worth exploring and integrating into the class? My students love communicating through face-book. I’ve found they respond quicker to emails sent via face-book than via blackboard announcements or through their university email. They’ve told me they prefer face-book b/c it keeps everything they do all the time in one place. It makes homework easier b/c it doesn’t feel like homework. What can be done then with visual rhetoric that makes it feel like something they can and should use professionally? As students in a myriad of courses? I can’t help but imagine that teaching them reflection, audience awareness, and critical analysis would be easier if visual rhetoric was at the core. What a great way to experience a concept and actually remember it!?! Hocks explains that digital environments can be used to “teach students to look critically and reflexively at media forms and to conceive of themselves as designers of their own histories and cultures. This kind of approach to pedagogy both acknowledges the fundamental role that technologies play in our understanding of critical literacy and drives the use of new communication technologies toward student-centered learning goals” (205). Teach students to “think outside the box and also about the box” (205). As I construct my pedagogy, I embrace critical pedagogy, am incorporating pedagogies of sustainability, and feel technology and the various forms it takes are skill sets I must acquire if I am to use all available means to teach in ways that promote active learning, fostering critical thinking, that is relevant to my students’ lives.
Inman, James A. Computers and Writing: The Cyborg Era. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004.
Inman examines how computers are used in the writing community, interviewing people such as Janice R. Walker (247) (who I met at 4Cs in Chicago); Cynthia L. Selfe (202); Liz Rohan (197); Mike Palmquist (182); Joe Moxley (157); Karen J. Lunsford (146); Steven D. Krause (138); Gail E. Hawisher (97); Muriel Harris (93); Christina Haas (89); Pamela Childers (50); Kris Blair (41); Cheryl E. Ball (35); among a host of others. Inman addresses defining what computers and writing is and means as well as what the cyborg era means and is. Cyborg history is also addressed, which is interesting as this pertains to pre-1980s and most computer classrooms seem to have started in the 80s. He presents and “recasts” the cannon of computers and writing scholarship, addresses “integrated meaning-making systems,” explores the “material conditions” of cyborg pedagogy, and presents an “agenda” for the “Future in and Beyond Computers and Writing: Cyborg Responsibility” (v). The combined voices, experiences, and positions lends credence to Inman’s work while seemingly uniting the field. An especially valuable source in that it gives the voices of innovative and progressive technologically savvy teachers.
Chapter one defines “computers and writing as a community” and argues that “contemporary computers and wiritngis in a ‘cyborg era,’ a period name that emphasizes individuals, technologies, and the contexts they share simultaneously, rather than just technologies or individuals” (1). I found this chapter to be especially helpful in defining what we mean by writing with computers. Defining the field, subfields, disciplines, subdisciplines etc. can become convoluted and messy. We lose sight of how computers and writing are intertwined in areas such as rhetoric and composition, technical communication, information studies, etc. (3). Writing is an act of agency and is thereby and extension of the writer. Therefore, as is pointed out clearly, “computers and writing as a community” is not merely a technology used but is a description of activities in which writers engage: “real and virtual conferences, professional organizations and initiatives; and publishing ventures and products” (3). Each of these activities is dissected into how individuals work with technology in their act of creating a product and use that technology to have agency in their act of creation and of interaction with those outside themselves, e.g. they use the technology to interact (literally — the creation of a dialogue–or figuratively, affecting their reader’s understanding of the concept under discussion) with their reader. Our reaction as a field, seen in conference presentations/panels/discussions, articles, and inquiries, has prompted a more timely dialogue (listservs etc.). The speed with which ideas are shared helps in their development and direction, though perhaps that also can cause some polarization, since “outsiders” aren’t keeping up with the current discussion (which could literally be going on as the “outsider” reads the print journal just published) shaping what will be published, researched, etc. The prominence of computers and writing in print journals illustrates the importance placed on it and where it is taking us as a field. How the cyborg community is situated (12) then is dependent on time. I found one insight to be very thought provoking, which isn’t to say that other insights weren’t thought provoking: “What interests me most about the ages, eras, and periods named is how they prove basically uninterrogated” (13). The terminology we use to discuss what we mean by technology and what it is, what activity, we’re doing makes this area of study, if you will, even more difficult for the “outsider” to understand and can cause confusion within, e.g. I find the multi-vocal discussion complex in that I’m not sure which mode of writing or which form of technology is really being discussed or used, since some of the terminology seems interchangeable. Moran, Charles, and Anne Herrington. “Evaluating Academic Hypertexts.” Teaching Writing With Computers: An Introduction. Eds. Pamela Takayoshi and Brian Huot. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2003. 247-257. I appreciated how they formed their ethos and how they disclosed their biases as “readers” of traditional texts, which may influence how they viewed hypertext (249). Their comparison between written text and hypertext illustrated how some criteria could be applied to both, while other criteria would be exclusive to hypertext (font color and background color, for example). It was especially important to consider them in ways beyond the good/not as good dichotomy.They developed their criteria based on actual texts that were published which has it’s benefits and costs. One criterion established was “degree of difficulty,” as it applies to technology. This is especially relevant, since not only are students composing, but they are also acquiring a new skill set. One issue I have with their article is the comparison between two students, one comfortable with the technology and one not. They suggest that the author experimenting with new technology should receive the higher grade. I support a high grade in that the student was meeting that criterion; however, I don’t think the students’ work should be compared, as is implied (at least to me) in their article (255). Primarily, I take away the importance of developing learning objectives first, assignments second, and methods of assessment and assessment criteria last. Owens, Derek. Composition and Sustainability: Teaching for a Threatened Generation. Urbana: NCTE, 2001. The concept of sustainability can be applied to any pedagogy, but it’s implications for computer mediated writing are complex and far reaching. For example, online portfolios and online writing, ebooks, etc. all reduce the use of paper and improve accessibility of some materials, though that accessibility of course depends on the availability of computers and the internet. He argues that the time for ecological change is now, that we can no longer shuffle the responsibility off onto the next generation; therefore, he explains, we must consider how to incorporate a pedagogy of sustainable change into our classroom praxis (2). I use the term praxis, meaning the process of putting theoretical knowledge into practice. Owens states: “The time is right for our conversations to address sustainability” (3) including the environment. Suggesting a new face for composition, Owens explains that by making the composition classroom a place promoting “sustainability-conscious thinking,” “composition becomes a different kind of ’service’ discipline, serving as a reminder of the conditions of our students’ neighborhoods, jobs, and cultures, as well as an indication of their hopes and fears for the future” (7). Owens attempts to answer not only how to create a philosophy of sustainability, but also how to implement it in the composition classroom. One point Owens explains early in his book is that he is not trying to use scare tactics to motivate his readers to change not only their personal lives but also their teaching strategies. In fact, he asserts that such tactics have numbed us to the call for change that must be answered, and will be answered regardless whether or not we act. He calmly provides data showing the ramifications of a consumer driven culture and illustrates the dismal future that will become a reality if changes are not made. Then using scientific reports and research to establish his ethos, he presents the need for change, dividing his book up among six chapters. Selber, Stuart A. “Multiliteracies for a Digital Age.” Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2004. Decontextualized understanding of computers and writing prevent us from understanding how we can have agency, how our work can be a part rather than apart from technology, and often limit our engagement with technology because of complicated and abstract representations of what constitutes technology. Understanding how to navigate technology can be difficult if not overwhelming as Selber points out in his example addressing hypertext: “effective revision strategies for hypertext require a host of complex abilities, ranging from saving files as part of a shared network drive to restructuring the logical-deductive pattern of an essay” (2). There is a cultural resistance, especially among those who feel uncomfortable working with technology, to accepting research in technology as “counting” toward tenure, for example. The work required deserves to be rewarded; without the reward, without the work being seen as valuable, there is less incentive for research to be done in this area. But if technology is required, trainings are required, and no incentives are provided, there will be resistance to what is seen as “extra” work (2). Ch. 1 investigates and outlines computer literacy programs in higher ed. to 1. “characterize the consequences and contexts,” 2. “discuss at least some of the reasons for this [the overlooked problems] neglect,” 3. “make a few initial proposals … needed … to create better alternatives” (3). Addressing students’ needs for multiple literacies in their future careers, the myth of equality through computers (4), solutions for at risk students (5), pedagogical and institutional impediments (6), and teacher needs, brings the complexity surrounding technology and its uses to the forefront. Pragmatic approaches and solutions seem bogged down by bureaucracy and in that “faculty in English departments are rarely (if ever) consulted in institutional matters of computer literacy” (22). Aspects of what technology doesn’t do interest me most. It doesn’t level the playing field. It doesn’t erase gender or race. It doesn’t erase socio-economic backgrounds (perhaps it augments them?). Yancey, Kathleen Blake. “The Pleasures of Digital Discussions: Lessons, Challenges, Recommendations, and Reflections.” Teaching Writing With Computers: An Introduction. Eds. Pamela Takayoshi and Brian Huot. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2003. 105-117. Yancey writes: “It’s not a question of whether you’ll use technology to help students learn. It’s a question of what kind of technology you will include–and when.” Immediately this quote got me thinking about class discussions in CMW and in Research Methods. Writing is a technology. What we perceive to be technology is what changes. What we perceive to count as writing changes too. Yancey lays out some of the forms of technology and suggests ways it can be used in the classroom such as: email (e-hours–online office hours–fantastic!), listserv (host guest speakers, use as class activity–e-discussions which can be used for invention, to track idea development, to foster critical thinking; professional listserv and listserv as a “study group”).
Yancey also provides a heuristic, prompting a deeper reflection from me regarding the hows and whys in my lesson plans. The list format also provides a starting place, a structure from which to make sense of the overwhelming possibilities. Wysocki, Anne Frances. “Opening New Media to Writing: Openings & Justifications.” Writing New Media: Theory and Applications for Expanding the Teaching of Composition. Eds. Anne Frances Wysocki, Johndan Johnson-Eilola, Cynthia L. Selfe, and Geoffrey Sirc. Logan: Utah State UP, 2004. 1-41. Wysocki provides a brief summary of what our initial reactions to technology and its impact on composition and literacy. She provides excerpts from Jay Bolter (1), Gunther Kress (1), and Bruce Horner’s take on “the materiality of writing” (3). Specifically, Wysocki outlines five needs composition and rhetoric instructors have including: “1. The need, in writing about new media in general, for the material thinking of people who teach writing 2. A need to focus on the specific materiality of the texts we give each other 3. A need to define “new media texts” in terms of their materialities 4. A need for production of new media texts in writing classrooms 5. A need for strategies of generous reading” (3).While she acknowledges that these are her concerns, she sees overlapping concerns that others in the collection write about, giving a good snapshot of one perception of the field and some of the current concerns. She also gives an overview in greater detail of recent concerns in the field regarding technology and literacy practices. Wysocki, Anne Frances. “The Sticky Embrace of Beauty: On Some Formal Problems in Teaching about the Visual Aspects of Texts.” Writing New Media: Theory and Applications for Expanding the Teaching of Composition. Eds. Anne Frances Wysocki, Johndan Johnson-Eilola, Cynthia L. Selfe, and Geoffrey Sirc. Logan: Utah State UP, 2004. 147-198. In this article, Wysocki addresses visual rhetoric specific (love this piece!). Quoting a portion of Terry Eagleton’s The Ideology of the Aesthetic and Lewis Hine, Wysocki also gives examples of the power of visual rhetoric (advertisements for the Kinsey Institute). She argues that “approaches many of us now use for teaching the visual aspects of texts are incomplete and, in fact, may work against helping students acquire critical and thoughtful agency with the visual” (149). She addresses graphic design, visual communication, etc., and I see a clear connection between technology literacies and visual literacies. As students navigate webpages, text alone usually does not prompt them to right click or double click. Furthermore, how space is used on the page is limited (think MLA formating), but virtual spaces and navigation is much more freeing and creates more possibilities for what could be, rather than what always has been. Sure there’s some resistance to change, but just what could be accomplished? It’s exciting. What visual literacies do students come to college with already, and what do they acquire (hmm, food for thought)?
