Community Technology

A main theme I noticed this week is one that continues to surface throughout the semester--that of community and networking. DigiRhet.org states that the real revolution in technology is not the machines themselves, but what they allow us to do: their connectivity and how they encourage networking, community, and easy feedback (238). Johnson-Eilola brings this up as well, noting that communication is key (214). This is of course an important point, but one that often is overlooked (especially to those super-techie people that work with computers, ironically). When most people think of technology, they imagine working by themselves without other's oversight or feedback. In fact, it is the community (of the internet, of blogs, of wikis, etc) that supports and encourages these new technologies. By acknowledging this reality, we can begin to understand the impact of digital technologies on writing, and on our students. Because certainly, with IM and text-messaging and accounts on MySpace, our students are highly literate with community-building technologies. The possibilities for these in the classroom are enormous.

--eliz24

The Rhetoric of Classroom Space

I was interested in the findings of the Palmquist et. al. study, which noted that students in computer classrooms reported higher levels of contact with teachers and other students. I was a bit disappointed with the lack of in-depth analysis as to the real cause of this, although the authors suggested the focus on in-class writing and student-centered pedagogies were a main reason for the change (54). Of course, Palmquist et. al. compare the computer classroom to a “traditional” classroom—which is assumed to be using current traditional pedagogy and does not include in-class writing time—effectively setting up a sort of straw man argument. I absolutely agree that ANY classroom that is focused on in-class student writing and is using pedagogies that are student-centered achieves a higher level of contact between students and teachers and among other students. But that says nothing of the classroom space—the layout itself doesn’t necessarily determine the discourse that is produced. Or does it? And so I come to my question (which I hope we can discuss during Bethany and my facilitation Wednesday night): to what extent does the physical space of a classroom determine course outcomes and goals? Palmquist et. al. rightly agree that the teacher’s philosophy affects the class the most, but how much effect does the layout have? Couldn’t a bad setting still achieve excellent results, or a great setting achieve awful results, just based on the teacher’s chosen pedagogy? And what does this say about the use of computer classrooms as compared to “traditional” ones?

--eliz25

The Benefits of CMC

In my own experience with CMC both as a teacher and student, I have found that when used appropriately, technologies such as online chat and discussion boards encourage discussion and dialogue. It is often difficult--and sometimes impossible--to get all my students to speak in class. The less they speak, the more I feel pushed to lead discussion and to ask questions rather than just sit back and moderate. But with CMC, I find more students are more likely to "talk" in class. Plus, with the discussion board, each student is forced to respond, requiring them to be active in class instead of sitting around waiting for someone else to answer the question. With the discussion board, I can assess all my students fairly, rather than having to call on each student for their response in a face-to-face discussion. At the beginning of a discussion board (the initial post from each student), at least, all students are equal. From then on, however, inequalities develop--some students reply more often than others, some initial posts recieve more responses and others' posts get ignored. Even so, I believe that using the discussion board or other asynchronous communication allows each student a voice that they may not have in a regular classroom setting.
I have not had as positive an experience with chat in an educational setting, however. Even though some students may feel more comfortable posting their opinions than raising their hand and saying them, the immediacy of chat makes it very similar to a face to face interaction. Some students take control, other student's comments get ignored (especially if the comments are too long to read, since chat moves very quickly), and everyone has to read fast--and type faster--to keep up. I find chat places students in a hierarchy once again--plus it moves so fast it's hard for a teacher to keep control! I don't see the use of chat while meeting together face to face, as it is easier to hold a live discussion than one online. So there are certain CMC technologies that can be helpful, but I would not group all of them together as being effective, as some of the readings mention.

--eliz25

Networking Cyborgs

I believe that Hawisher et. al.’s discussion of successful classroom practices illustrate Inman’s concept of the cyborg era in his article “Defining Computers and Writing: Defining the Cyborg Era.” In both the areas of writing instruction and technology, Hawisher et. al. describe successful practices that are also cyborgian—that is, practices which emphasize individuals, technologies, and contexts simultaneously (Inman 1). The successful techniques of writing across the curriculum, process pedagogy, computer-mediated communication (CMC) technology (such as online chat, discussion boards, and email), and networked computer technology all force the student to be aware of their setting and their technology method along with themselves when they write. For instance, a student can’t ignore the fact of a blog’s online, widely available content when he/she writes one. In fact, the Process movement may have even helped to encourage cyborg practices, as the pedagogy clearly emphasizes being conscious of the setting and the method along with the writer. While Current-Traditional pedagogy emphasizes only one above all, Process is cyborgian and fits well into technology use as it encourages emphasis on a variety of areas at once.

--eliz25

Teaching in the Cyborg Era

I found Inman’s concept of the “cyborg era” to describe the community of computers and writing especially fitting, as it relates to pedagogy. As Inman defines it, a cyborg is the synergy of individuals, technologies, and contexts they share (14). It requires an active position, foregrounding the individual equally with technology and shared contexts. This is vital if we want to successfully apply the principles discussed in Wysocki and Selfe’s articles on teaching new media literacies and expanding composition studies to include new media texts. We must not do to our students what has been done in the past—that is, ignore or minimize the student in favor of the “really cool!” technology. Individuals are put on equal ground with the technology they use and the context they use it in, requiring students to be actively involved in the technology and never letting it take over (as can happen so often with programs like PowerPoint. It is important for students to realize that they have an equal-standing relationship with technology, that it doesn’t just do things for them while they passively watch—they are a necessary and active member of the relationship. Therefore, the concept of cyborg can help us to understand and remember the important place of the individual in technology use.

--eliz25