Final Reflections

I'm always tremendously impressed with Banks works, and his ways of writing and thinking, respectively. Banks, both in his keynote at CCCCs and in this written piece on Digital Griots, has a skillful way of considering print, orality and digital media as all important components of literate activities as well rhetorical practices. His take on how the DJ can be re-imagined in a new century, mixing and remixing, and as part of a digital story, and how DJs act as key players in making connections in narratives and mastering a range of techniques and technologies was a compelling argument.

Furthermore, I heed Banks' appeal that Rhet/Comp needs to value cultural diversity while investigating social contexts. At the same time, it is true that writing is an active performance and that if you want to understand a writer then you must understand the culture, not only the individual. I had never really reflected on that. Instead, I really have only emphasized the importance of understanding the self, as a writer, to my students. However, I never paused to really consider the effects and impacts of culture on writing habits and practices. An important point for me to consider and to work into my own reflexivity, as well as important when urging students to consider their own cultures and influences on their writing practices.

Lastly, Bowen pushed me to think about my own ageist bias and the ways in which I regard certain literacies as more valuable than others. I enjoy reading pieces like these, narratives, as I find them more personal and engaging. Yet, at the same time, I found it interesting how Bowen explored and wove together the themes of a literacy narratives with adaptations to digital media and technology, to tell Bev's story and to suggest how individuals "innovate to make meaning in their daily lives." To end, this piece made me pause and smile, reflecting on how embodied rhetoric is, especially recalling Bev's insistence that the chair be upright when she used the computer to allow her to type properly.

Weekly Response: November 10, 2015

Danielle Donelson

This week's readings complicated the notions of what constitutes a hybrid classroom, especially in exploring the MOOC (Massively Open Online Class). I confess that I had previously understood hybrids to be exactly 50/50 in terms of providing a curriculum focused on online classroom and a traditional face to face classroom setting. In that way, these readings challenged me to reconsider how the degrees of online activity versus face to face activity, may exist in varying degrees, depending on the nature of the classroom, the curriculum, the instructor's individual pedagogy, etc.

I found Graff's (2009) point that teachers must connect and move away from "hermetically sealed classroom" that are private and isolated to be a key point, one that I intend to (and must) consider as someone who will need support, especially in incorporating technology and multimedia into my composition classroom. Additionally, I think that this point corresponds nicely to some of the difficulties educators now face--such as how there is a push to use technology within composition classroom; however, though that urge is there, many instructors still lack training and educational institutions fail to provide adequate instruction in how to incorporate technology into writing classrooms. What's more, as Blair points out, even when there is a push to incorporate multimodality and digital media in the classroom, too often the focus becomes on migration rather than on transformation. Indeed the shift from alphabetic text to multimodality (including but not limited to digital media) is not one can be merely transported to the online realm. At least, it ought not to be. If it is, I concur with Blair, that we do a disservice to all that digital media and technology may offer twenty first composition classroom (as well as further extend the gap between practice and theory).  For this reason, I see that failing to incorporate digital media and technology into the writing classroom is not the only way that composition curriculums may become antiquated and left behind. Rather, I see the limitations of our own dichomotous mindsets to be the barriers or imprisoning walls that we placed around ourselves. I say this humbly and without judgment, for I am one of the people often trapped within the confines of my own binary thinking.

Lastly, as a novice OWI, I appreciate the practical tips provided by Blair, Warnock and the MOOC. piece. The rubrics, points to consider, ways to incorporate various multi-modes (including blogs and audio essays, ones of which I may be more familiar) as well the realistic, first step implementations, I think are all important first steps for techno-phobic individuals, like myself, to consider and work towards implementing in my composition courses.

Weekly Response: November 3

Danielle Donelson

Weekly Response for 11/2/15

            I appreciate the idea that students engage in instruction and in creating assessment forms, whether for alphabetic texts or multi-modal ones or digital ones. I remember, as a student, being asked to brainstorm how to construct a rubric for a composition assignment. This activity affected and altered the way that I thought about composition instruction, especially as a producer. Therefore, I completely understand how engaging students in that process of creating a rubric for digital media and multimodal assignments would assist students in re-conceptualizing the composing process.

The rubrics provided in both texts offered some concrete examples of how I may assess students’ multimodal, and perhaps, more specifically, digital compositions. In Alexander’s piece, I especially appreciated the tips that were provided to assist instructors in assessing multimodal assignments. Having some concrete tips, and reflecting on how they are ones that have been used in this class, make me feel a bit more competent to begin introducing multimodal assignments in my composition class. I understand that I must keep in mind that I don’t need to be the expert on everything related to composition; rather, that both instructors and students may learn together, as the process can be daunting and each may bring different strengths to the proverbial table. I think relinquishing that control and admitting to not being the expert (in fact, admitting oneself to also be a novice in one area, even if it is in technology) is an extremely difficult thing for veteran Composition Instructors, those who feel like they are not digital natives.

To end, I appreciate the point made that composing digital texts is just as nuanced as composing alphabetic texts, if not more. Additionally, the composing process ought to be considered, emphasized, and learned from. In this way, we may also understand the digital composing process to be as recursive and just as need of meta-awareness and reflection as the alphabetic text composing process.  

Belated: Arola's Piece

"...just because technology is seamlessly woven into their lives does no mean they are technologically savvy." ~Arola

In response to that, I think:

Um, Word.

True 'dat.

I'm case in point and from my limited experiences, my students also feel ill-equipped to use technology, at least in educational settings and for educational purposes. Though to remedy or rectify this situation, there is no other way to combat this, to rectify this problem than to encourage "playing" with multmodality and digital media. Because clearly, technology is here to say and digital media and multimodalities will only continue to grow ever more complex and varied.

One of the points that this piece made, that I need to take heed of, is in the limiting factors when using templates. As a technologically stubborn person, I can understand that there is a downside to templates. Too often when using templates I over-rely on them; they're certainly a crutch for me. It makes sense that they would limit creativity and innovation on a larger scale. I found the examples of facebook compared to myspace an illustrative, and it's all the more reason to get out of my comfort zone to expand ideas of form beyond templates.

From Dr. RM's class, I had read a piece about "contact zones" (Bruce Pratt) in relation to Indigenous classrooms and Decolonial pedagogy, so it was interesting to reflect on this premise from a linguistic and how it pertains to interface, and the digital realm. Too often I think of linguistic matters and contact zones, pertaining to social interactions, forgetting that technology does not limit all social engagements. On the contrary, they can also promote them. And not just related to social media and playing, but in terms of academics as well.

One Instructor confronts her digital technological e-Fears...

I appreciate Selfe's position in the piece, "Tackling a Fundamental Problem" that people must come first, then pedagogies ought to be emphasized, followed by technologies. As someone who fears technology because of the potential distance and separation that it creates between people socially, relationally and in terms of face to face interactions, I applaud Selfe's emphasis on considering prioritizing people and considering their relationships to technology, rather than idolizing technology. I think because there is danger in separating the two or seeing them in total opposition, which I think happens (perhaps not in terms of scholarly work but when technology is implemented without critical or careful regard for its affordances and limitations). I fear when working with computers, or incorporating technology, and/or using digital media is done in uncritical ways, as academic institutions may run the risk of, while emphasizing technologies, also limiting a human approach or personalized factors. I appreciate that Selfe poses an idea that would not make the two cease to be diametrically opposed or forever at odds, in my mind, and hopefully also in practice. Similarly, Brooks, Lindgreen and Warner helps us readers to see that the focus ought to be on people first, then agency or outcomes of social change (with the aid of digital technologies?). However, these areas do not (have to) exist in a totally separate realm from one another. Perhaps this is one area that we may further bridge (one area of) this digital divide.

I found Sirc's metaphor thought-provoking that instructors may serve as a guide for students, while composition classrooms may be representative of a museum. While idealistically, I appreciate this concept, in practice, I also experience familiar jitters, especially when I'm reminded of how ill-equipped I feel to handle technology myself, much less serve as a guide my students in their tour of the museum of digital compositions. Undoubtedly this is the reason why Selfe stresses the need for teachers to "have opportunities to learn, explore, evaluate, re-try" so that we may become more well trained and comfortable with such technologies. Indeed, I need to, for myself personally and professionally, as well as an composition instructor, to "identify a sustainable system of support for such projects." I must drawn from, the resources that are available, listen to the collective experiences, consider the stakeholders and pay attention to success and failure stories surrounding digital technologies and digital literacies.

Furthermore, Bjork and Schwartz put forth some wonderfully thought provoking concepts in their "paradigm for mobile composition." Truly, rhetorical activity does exist, and knowledge and meaning making happens, and writing occurs, many times, perhaps more often, outside of academic spaces. Writing is no longer isolated to tradition classroom spaces (was it ever?), but especially now with the advent of new technology, mobile devices, laptops, WIFI, apps on smart phones, etc. Wireless networks do "redefine the classroom" and allow for "student-student collaboration" and reconfigure composition instruction and interactions. Rather than seeing in class writing and meaning making and out of class writing and meaning making as entirely separate realms, we need to visualize them as both important works that we, as scholars and educators, and our students actively, daily, engage in.

I do see how incorporating mobile assignments could further help to destabilize the dichotomy of digital or traditional, and open up possibilities for hybrid classrooms to emerge, and flourish. Now, to make the plunge or jump into the deep end. Eeep!

Alexander & Rhodes

In the last few chapters of On Multimodality: New Media in Composition Studies, Alexander and Rhodes provided two examples of bringing technology into the classroom, and examples of how to use it as critical pedagogy. One example they provided was in not only playing a video game, but in recognizing the technological literacies that students must possess in order to master them effectively. The other example offered a critical pedagogy that investigated how technology influenced the Virginia Tech shootings and how Cho used technology to more quickly disseminate information, compared to when the Columbine shootings took place.

I appreciate the need to understand and respect multiple technology literacies that our students (may) have. However, at the same time, I also think that we need to be leery of assuming that any and all students have those literacies and abilities. I know that many do, and many possess the capacity for learning them, even if they don't have much experience in it. Still, I think that there is an inherent danger in assuming that any student would flourish when met with a multimodal assignment or in using various digital programs to construct a composition text assignment. For this reason I appreciated how Alexander and Rhodes emphasized the need to teach students how to work with these programs, highlighting that instructors need to teach both critical selection and rhetorical effectiveness when constructing digital texts.

Though I appreciated the efforts Alexander and Rhodes made in providing the examples of social media surrounding Cho and his attach on Virginia Tech, I find myself a bit hesitant to know how exactly it constitutes critical pedagogy. Furthermore, I'm unsure how I could proceed in constructing my own form of critical pedagogy that used technology or investigated social media, etc. It still seems rather nebulous to me what they did, why it was critical pedagogy and how I could design something similar for my composition course.

To end, though I still have many insecurities, fears and hesitancy about using technology within my own composition classroom, mostly because of my own inabilities, I recognize the benefits that multimedia, technology and multimodality have in the composition classroom. Furthermore, I appreciate these authors' critical stance on the issue, acknowledging and warning against techno-illusionism.

Response to Alexander & Rhodes and Shipka

Danielle Donelson
Dr. Kris Blair
English 7280
Weekly Response 9/28/15

As Shipka points out, the communicative landscape is changing; as such, we--as composition and rhetoric instructors--need to heed Sirc's advice: in order to make our discipline/subject relevant to students, we must (re)discover (and I would argue, embrace) new processes, materials and products or ways of teaching composition, through multimodal means. To fail to do so would make our courses lack usefulness for our students and create a disjunction between the multimodal (including but not limited to digital media and digital writing) and the print world. On a greater scale, as Alexander and Rhodes point out, to fail to engage with multimodality and digital writing/media is to risk putting our jobs and the future of our discipline at stake.

Though not to sound too superior, and in manner of full disclosure, I must eat my humble pie and heed Shipka's advice, as I am someone who (I fear) uses the terms of multimodality and digital writing interchangeably. Therefore, I appreciated the ways that these readings challenged me to expand my thinking and to reconsider alternative composition processes, like using a shirt or shoe as a means of text. In considering non-digital forms, I was forced to confront my own misconceptions that multimodality is not synonymous with technology and that it is not an entirely new discipline (Shipka).

Lastly, Shroeder's assertion that narrative is a powerful genre and tool toward the goal of critical efficacy of alternative rhetorics and discourses in composition is provocative and thought-provoking. This claim seems to echo teachings from Decolonial Theory and Indigenous Studies courses, where storytelling is held in great reverence. In other words, storying and storytelling blur in the boundaries with theory and methodology; no longer is the latter seen as the more elite, the superior, because the walls are broken down between these categories. There seems to be a connection here, especially as Shroeder encourages scholars in the field not to discount narratives since they are "central to intellectual work" (p.39).  

To end, I appreciated Alexander and Rhodes' claims that digital media and digital writing may be used in both effective and minimally effective ways. I comment them for acknowledging how often "techno-illusionism" takes place, when educators become over eager to employ "technology for technology's sake." However, at the same time, when executed thoughtfully and effectively, assigning digital assignments may be effective educative tools, if paired with rhetorical teaching and critical pedagogy values. The sample assignments at the end of Chapter two helped me to gain a more concrete idea of multimodal assignments, that still encourage students to learn about rhetorical situations and engage in critical thinking in the (digital) composing process.