One approach:

I would ask for feedback from each of the students–personal narratives of how they learn; how the class has or has not changed how they learn, think about research, and work with peers; how the readings and/or assignments help further their research etc.

I would also ask for feedback from the special speakers and from the class about the special speaker’s presentations.

Finally, after analyzing the data and representing it, I’d ask for feedback from the class about my representation of them.

If we have other sources, especially those who/that tell differing stories than those we’ve uncovered doing archival research, what ethical responsibility do we have to present all the representations of the person we are researching and, ultimately, representing?

Is it fair when those considerations may not come up when the person researched died long ago, and thus has no surviving relatives?

Barton’s three reasons for performing discourse analysis are 1. how language is produced, 2. how language is interpreted, 3. how language is acquired.  Are there other reasons for performing discourse analysis?

Bolter, Jay David. Writing Space: Computers, Hypertext, and the Remediation of Print. 2^nd 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)?

(1) How did you approach the observation activity? 

As a participant observer.

(2)  What did you learn about the site you observed by studying it?

 Looking at the social context helped me investigate how conference participants engage in professional development. I also examined the methods presenters used to convey information.

(3) What did you see as the challenges of observing and representing the site?

I had a difficult time separating this conference panel from others I’ve attended. Many behaviors result from “conference norming.”

(4)  What did you learn about yourself as the observer/researcher?  

 I have to watch my preconceived notions. Instead of looking for support for what I think I’ll find, I need to use maybe grounded theory as a methodology to investigate what is there and then draw conclusions.

(5)  How would you assess your observation skills?  And your notetaking skills?

My observation skills are okay, but I need to improve my notetaking skills!

Participants: Peter Morton and Catherine Blose

Location: Alberta, Calgary, Canada. The Westin Hotel

Description/Location:

Hotel conference rooms, traditional seating (rows facing the front), projector and PowerPoint set up. Attendees: professional development, conference attendees, conference presenters.

Observations:

No conversation between attendees prior to the panel speaking. Interesting spacing between where attendees are seated. Those attendees who already know each other are chatting and sitting together. One such group engaged someone sitting near them.

I found this interesting. It’s almost like the first day of classes when we engage in “ice breakers” with our students. Everyone in attendance ostensibly is at the conference with similar goals, yet we often don’t speak. Why is this?

The chair and originator is unable to attend because she began a new job at a different university and is a German citizen who now must apply for a new Visa. Her lawyers advised her not to leave the US as she may not be allowed to return without a valid visa.

This information is a wonderful example of how life gets in the way of the research we do  and attempt to present/share with each other. Everyone seemed very understanding of the difficulties the panel chair was encountering. What other difficulties do we face? What logistical difficulties do we encounter as academics, as researchers? How can conference organizers reduce those difficulties?

Catherine Blose is a doctoral candidate. She read her paper, but occasionally stopped to add additional information. Her paper was on witchcraft in literature. This presentation focused on Middleton and Shakespeare. She used historical analysis to situate Macbeth. Blose gave the results of a close reading of the text, outlining who authored which sections/acts/lines.

The parts that were added were most interesting and Blose seemed to light up when she spoke about those sections. How can we encourage presentations that aren’t read? It seems as though the best parts of many presentations are off the cuff, so to speak.

Mid-presentation, a woman joined the audience, bringing Starbucks coffee and a pastry in a wrinkly bag that rustled when she consumed her snack.

Why is this annoying to me?

The 11 people in attendance were listening/ reading the handouts provided/ writing/taking notes or snacking.

The presentation was engaging, at times evoking polite laughter.

Three more women joined the audience, making their way to the front of the room along the side wall.

The noise in the hall was much like white noise.

Dress of the audience varied from suits to jeans, a tailored white dress shirt and shawl (loose spider weave).

Three more gentlemen joined the audience, filling in the spaces in the back.

18 audience members and 2 presenters at this point.

How we have been culturally normed to enter a room when late is interesting. It seems as if people first look for areas where they can sit with those they already know, and then look for empty spaces in the back so as not to disturb those in attendance. Interesting.

Peter Morton introduced himself.

The technology took a short time to warm up, as it was ready to go.

He discussed how witchcraft often is separated from literature, as religious studies often are. He contextualizes the pieces he examines in the 16th and 17th centuries. He also read his paper and would break from his reading to add additional info.

A gentleman joined us as well. Walked to the far side in the rear where fewer people were seated. A woman joined then and sat in the nearest seat to the door.

It’s interesting that he’s articulating his outline by reading his papers and outline. His PowerPoint was filled with text.

He words are clearly articulated, volume and tone drops when additional info is given that isn’t a part of the prepared lecture. He reads the quotes he provides on the PowerPoint.

11:15

Some audience members now flipping through program, taking notes, glancing around.

PowerPoint is in blood red with white writing and yellow bullets.

Interesting colors. Providing the longer quotes in a handout may have made following them easier and left the presenter more time to give analysis. The presentation developed a “reading” feel. How are we taught to use technology? How can technology enhance or detract from presentations?

Journal Review

1.   Language Learning & Technology

http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num2/editors/default.html

The editors are Irene Thompson and Dorthy Chun.

It’s a free subscription; it’s funded by the U of Hawaii (NFLRC), Michigan State (CLEAR), and the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL).

Articles are prepared for educators, though not necessarily discipline specific educators, making them much more accessible, and go through internal and external review.

It’s a refereed journal, which began in July 1997, and is published three times per year exclusively on the World Wide Web, using a multimedia format, illustrating the technologies discussed and providing hyperlinks to situate the discussions.

The journal’s purpose is to share research internationally with ESL educators on technology and language education issues. The emphasis is on second language acquisition and how technology affects or enhances that acquisition.

Its strength is also its weakness. As a fully online publication, many tenure track or tenured professors desiring promotion may find that their university lends less weight to online publications than to traditional print publications.

3.   Composition Studies

The editors are Carrie Leverenz and Brad Lucas. The cost is $30-35 per year for institutions, depending on the kind of institution; $15-20 per year for individuals; $12 per year for graduate students; and $8 for a single issue.It is published bi-annually. For BGSU students, it’s available in both print and electronic format. I found it also at www.compositionstudies.tcu.edu. It’s also available in microforms. Abstracts are available of current and previous issues, book reviews, and course designs.   It’s a peer reviewed journal (2 reviewers), actively indexed, with solicited book reviews (25 per year), no charges for submissions or pages, and articles are 3,500-7,500 words in length typically, with roughly 10% published (100 are submitted, 8-10 are published, those rejected are returned by request to the author with a 2-3 month period between submission and decision, if accepted 3-12 months until publication). Abstracts are published, though short notes are not. Copyright reverts of author after publication. 

I enjoy the journal because it focuses on rhetoric, composition, pedagogy, education, teaching, and writing, the teaching and administration of writing, and interdisciplinary issues of interest and feel that because it’s a peer reviewed journal, it’s articles are timely, contribute to the field, and aren’t solipsistic or monopolized by a handful of authors.

4.   Computers and Composition: An International Journal for Teachers of Writing

The editors are Gail E. Hawisher and Cynthia L. Selfe.         

It’s published quarterly, and is easily accessed online through BGSU’s library (issues from 1999-2007, the current issue), with hardcopies available in the library 1983-present. Issues are available on EJC. Abstracts, HTML and PDF full texts are available.

I enjoyed this journal because I see how it will address issues of language, language acquisition, technology, computermediated writing, dialects, marginalization, entering the discussion, etc. Those issues will be especially important as I work on my dissertation. The tone is a mix between formal and informal, with narratives describing what teachers have done (praxis) and how it has worked out.

There is a good deal of visual rhetoric and quantitative data as well. Furthermore, the references provided also are ohiolinks, so additional research is easily done. Articles are around 7,000 words.

5.   Kairos: A Journal for Teachers of Writing and Webbed Environments

http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/index.html

The editors are Douglas Eyman and James A. Inman (senior eds) and Cheryl Ball and Beth Hewett.

It’s a refereed online journal focusing on rhetoric, technology, and pedagogy, and includes special topics.

Webtexts are published on “scholarly examinations of large-scale issues related to special topics, individual and collaborative reviews of books and media, news and announcements of interest, interactive exchanges about previous Kairos publications, and extended interviews with leading scholars.” Academic online publications illustrate the push for the academy to accept non-traditional print media and illustrate the support of marginalized voices, “especially graduate students and adjunct and other part-time faculty.”

“Beginning with issue 11.1, the main server for Kairos has moved to kairos.technorhetoric.net. All issues prior to 12.1 will remain available here at english.ttu.edu/kairos; however, the preferred URL for the journal and for articles is now kairos.technorhetoric.net” Easily accessible from campus computers and off campus—connection through GMU.

Kairos features four sections: Topoi, Praxis, Reviews, and Interviews, and also has an accompanying News section, which is continually updated. Kairos actively does what it supports. By being an online publication, it shows its commitment to hypermedia. The weaknesses again are the strengths: how such publications count or don’t count for tenure, promotion, etc.

6.   Enculturation: A Journal for Rhetoric, Writing, and Culture

http://enculturation.gmu.edu/

It has a series of editors and editorial board members (13). The general editor is Byron Hawk, technical editor is collin Gifford Brooke, and the copy editor is Thomas Rickert.

It’s easily accessed online, and list serve sign up is possible, but it looks like there aren’t any new issues; 2005 looks like the last issue.

Quality articles that are rather short but authored by “big names” in the field, and obviously, if it’s now defunct, that’s a weakness.

While sustainability—meeting today’s needs without jeopardizing the interests of future generations—has become a dominating force in a range of disciplines, it has yet to play a substantive role in English studies. Derek Owens argues that, in light of worsening environmental crises and accelerating social injustices, we need to use sustainability as a way to structure courses and curricula, and that composition studies, with its inherent cross-disciplinarity and its unique function in students’ academic lives, can play a key role in giving sustainability a central place in students’ thinking and in the curriculum as a whole.

Owens draws on student writing to articulate a pedagogy that gives students opportunities to think and write in three zones of inquiry: place, work, and future. This approach allows for the creation of a variegated course wherein students write neighborhood portraits, critique their work experiences, reflect on their majors, investigate alternative theories of education, compose oral histories, construct narratives about their futures, and design their own assignments—all from the perspective of sustainability. These writings are juxtaposed with observations from writers in architecture, ecological economics, future studies, planning, sociology, sustainable business, and urban studies.

The appendixes include a wealth of environmental statistics, as well as a detailed description of Owens’s composition course, with assignments ready to use or adapt.
Refiguring English Studies series. 224 pp. 2001. College. ISBN 0-8141-0037-6.
No. 00376

Owens, Derek. Composition and Sustainability: Teaching for a Threatened Generation. Urbana: NCTE, 2001. ix-xvi. 1-259.

A philosophy of sustainability focuses on creating a lifestyle eschewing consumerism and wastefulness and embracing and promoting necessary changes to support present and future generations. Derek Owens makes a clear case for considering the necessity of incorporating theories of ecology into our pedagogy in his book Composition and Sustainability: Teaching for a Threatened Generation. 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.While half of the book is devoted to appendixes, notes, and works cited, the six chapters Owens presents include: Chameleon Vision, where he discusses the role of English Studies. Sustainability, in which Owens defines the term and explains the need for sustainable theory.  Place, in which Owens attempts to locate a physical place to prevent the detachment often felt in academic writing: “Academic discourse can be such a placeless discourse: the constant flow of monographs and articles and papers, so many composed as if by disembodied entities detached from any specific locale” (36). Here Owens also explains writing about local surroundings, not as a backdrop for the main point, but that “who we are and what we have to say is in so many ways interwoven, directly and indirectly, consciously and unconsciously, with our local environs” (37), as it also is true with our students and their lives. Work, where Owens tackles the concept of “real world,” defining it as the “world of work” and connects it to our students’ lives outside of and after their time in academia (77). The final chapter is Future, in which the emphasis of time is highlighted. Kairotic really, in that Owens argues that shuffling responsibility for ecological concerns is now ours and is the generations we teach. He suggests that “writing the future” belongs in the classroom today, since “looking into the near future is something [Owens considers] an essential component of sustainability-based thinking” (108). 6. Reconstructive Design is the final chapter provided, though it falls halfway through the book. In this chapter, Owens argues against environmentalist clichés, asserting instead that “the flaw rests in the fact that the in junction to ‘think globally, act locally’ proposes a false gap between cognition and behavior,” and arguing for the “need to explore the relationship between the ‘local’ and the ‘global’” (132). He suggests conceptualizing courses in ways that mimic “cross-pollination,” finding “synthesis between specialization” and, as Owens quotes Robert Costanza’s argument, “transdisciplinary problem solving” (141). This chapter provides the strongest argument for developing and implementing theories of sustainability.Owens writes primarily to college English instructors and administrators, specifically to composition instructors, including graduate students, urging for this pedagogical addition to the already highly politicized act of writing and of writing instruction. Considering the content of the book and the nature of the call to action, high school teachers would also find the book enlightening and a source for how to incorporate the suggestions found within.Ways to incorporate a philosophy of sustainability are found in the complete lesson plans including reading selections, assignments, and paper topics are found in the appendices. He includes sections titled “Bad News: A Compilation of Observations and Forecasts, Sustainability in a Composition Course,” and “Snapshot of an Environmental Footprint” (ix, 165, 173, 215). While the appendixes provide the praxis for Owens’s theories, the majority of the chapters are devoted to student writing, sufficient evidence of how Owens’s theories worked in his classes. He suggests using students’ personal lives as a place to begin, since it offers them a place to stand as they are experts on their neighborhoods and lives and it provides them a generative topic that theoretically they will be interested in researching. Teachers espousing critical pedagogy or expressivist pedagogy could easily adapt the suggestions for lessons Owens provides without compromising their pedagogical stance.While Owens provides a theoretical framework for his discussion of ecology and sustainability, the theory loses precedence to students’ writing and how to enact the theory pragmatically in the classroom. My only negative critique of Owens would be not that the usability of such pedagogy is highlighted, but that the theory could be discussed and developed further in its own right. The 2007 Western States Rhetoric and Literacy Conference (WSRL) specifically focused on issues of sustainability. Clearly, ecology and sustainability are “hot” within the field of English Studies. Issues panels presented on included: sustaining online writing communities; consumer literacies, globalism, and corporate advertising; community literacies; rhetorical narratives of place; a transdisciplinary approach to literacies of sustainability; and eco-feminism and race among others. Owens directly discusses sustainable transdiscipinary approaches, narratives of place, and community literacies in his book, showing, as he was oft cited at the conference, the impact of his work and its importance to the field of composition and how that field is changing. Composition’s ever-changing incarnation begs the current question in the field: What does the future of English Studies look like? What role do we see composition classes playing? Owens attempts to answer those questions, as he argues that composition instructors especially have an opportunity and responsibility to create social change that would improve the environment.Overall, Composition and Sustainability: Teaching for a Threatened Generation is an enjoyable read that does not come across as “preachy,” perhaps this is due to the narrative Owens uses to persuade his readers. Interestingly enough, I found his seemingly critical pedagogical stance to be more of a hybrid, as he uses students’ personal experiences and narratives to cultivate a desire for change and then employs those same strategies in his own text. Furthermore, I found his book beneficial to understanding the larger argument for creating a philosophy of sustainability, as it aided my understanding of not only the ideas presented at the WSRL conference, but also other current calls for papers for publications and conferences alike. Owens’ book makes the current conversation accessible and inviting.Journal for consideration: Rhetoric ReviewRationale:            Rhetoric Review is read by college English teachers, among other academics. The articles published within include the changing face of English Studies, teaching composition, the purpose of freshman composition, feminist rhetoric, and rhetorics of ecology. Composition and Sustainability: Teaching for a Threatened Generation fits not only the audience for Rhetoric Review but also the kinds of books that are reviewed for said journal, such as: Greg Myers’ Matters of Opinion: Talking about Public Issues; Patricia Bizzell’s Rhetorical Agendas: Political, Ethical, Spiritual; and Jeffrey Walker’s Rhetoric and Poetics in Antiquity.

In “Teaching and Learning Visual Rhetoric” (TWWC), 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 compositons 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.

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.

This all said, I’m having a horrible bout with technology this semester, as I re-post this response using different ideas than before really, since my internet cut out and I lost my previous post! (I had just clicked “save and continue editing” too, but apparently a little too late! LOL)

Go figure.

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) (as we discussed in more detail in class a couple weeks back). Paradigm shifts take time, sometimes.