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.
Saturday, September 26, 2015
Monday, September 21, 2015
Weekly Response #3
Danielle Donelson
Dr. Kris Blair
English 7280
September 21, 2015: Weekly Response
In some way, nearly all of these scholars in our readings have seemed to echo one another, or at least least make similar claims. To me, their overarching premise is this: rhetoric and composition in the 21st century is a complex field and one that involves areas of multimodality, which extends to aurality, digital media, technology, hypertexts, etc. Consequently, as pedagogues, we ought to continue or start exploring these areas, building on our own expertise and knowledge, while also bringing multimodal assignments into our classroom curriculum(s). Failure to do so essentially limits our students' education, their growth and development as rhetors and their understanding of how our field and this required composition class relates to their current globalized, technologized world.
Selfe, in her piece, "The Movement of Air, The Breath of Meaning: Aurality and Multimodal Composing," points out the fallacy, how composition scholars have too easily accepted that "writing is not simply one way of knowing; it is the way" (p. 619-620). However, as Selfe points out, and we have discussed in previous classes, while writing and public speaking have been divided into separate classes in the US, both have a deserving place in this broad category of rhetoric. Though doxa would suggest otherwise, oratory and aurality are equally important elements of composition teaching, and thus ought to be reflected in our assignments and curriculum. Selfe emphasizes that she is not claiming to eliminate one or push for one at the expense of the other; however, as both represent the broad world of rhetoric, both our to emphasized in Rhetoric and Composition courses. I do agree.
Though, at the same time, I appreciated Alexander and Rhodes' urge to more critically consider the "how to" question. In other words, while involving multimodality and hypertext and movies and sound and recordings may seem creative, fun, helpful, and innovative, to simply assign these tasks without any understanding of how they relate to rhetoric, critical thinking, production of an argument, how they will be evaluated, is to not effectively make use of multimodes of teaching. I applauded their insight, as they did not blindly hop on the bandwagon but more critically approached the question of "how" and "why," as well as the very real possibility that the use of multimodality and digital media in composition classrooms is not inherently good or productive. (Granted, it is not inherently limited either, but a fair balance and more critical analysis ought to be examined from all angles).
Nevertheless, aurality in composition classrooms may/does have a relationship to literacy. And though we are still fighting against the misconception that writing skills and abilities may be equated with intelligence, as Selfe points out, and I would add, with mastery of rhetoric, in general, we are making progress, strides in the right direction. Though we do need "all forms of communication available to us" (Selfe) to make meaning from this ever complex, ever changing, multimodal world, both in the classroom and outside.
Dr. Kris Blair
English 7280
September 21, 2015: Weekly Response
In some way, nearly all of these scholars in our readings have seemed to echo one another, or at least least make similar claims. To me, their overarching premise is this: rhetoric and composition in the 21st century is a complex field and one that involves areas of multimodality, which extends to aurality, digital media, technology, hypertexts, etc. Consequently, as pedagogues, we ought to continue or start exploring these areas, building on our own expertise and knowledge, while also bringing multimodal assignments into our classroom curriculum(s). Failure to do so essentially limits our students' education, their growth and development as rhetors and their understanding of how our field and this required composition class relates to their current globalized, technologized world.
Selfe, in her piece, "The Movement of Air, The Breath of Meaning: Aurality and Multimodal Composing," points out the fallacy, how composition scholars have too easily accepted that "writing is not simply one way of knowing; it is the way" (p. 619-620). However, as Selfe points out, and we have discussed in previous classes, while writing and public speaking have been divided into separate classes in the US, both have a deserving place in this broad category of rhetoric. Though doxa would suggest otherwise, oratory and aurality are equally important elements of composition teaching, and thus ought to be reflected in our assignments and curriculum. Selfe emphasizes that she is not claiming to eliminate one or push for one at the expense of the other; however, as both represent the broad world of rhetoric, both our to emphasized in Rhetoric and Composition courses. I do agree.
Though, at the same time, I appreciated Alexander and Rhodes' urge to more critically consider the "how to" question. In other words, while involving multimodality and hypertext and movies and sound and recordings may seem creative, fun, helpful, and innovative, to simply assign these tasks without any understanding of how they relate to rhetoric, critical thinking, production of an argument, how they will be evaluated, is to not effectively make use of multimodes of teaching. I applauded their insight, as they did not blindly hop on the bandwagon but more critically approached the question of "how" and "why," as well as the very real possibility that the use of multimodality and digital media in composition classrooms is not inherently good or productive. (Granted, it is not inherently limited either, but a fair balance and more critical analysis ought to be examined from all angles).
Nevertheless, aurality in composition classrooms may/does have a relationship to literacy. And though we are still fighting against the misconception that writing skills and abilities may be equated with intelligence, as Selfe points out, and I would add, with mastery of rhetoric, in general, we are making progress, strides in the right direction. Though we do need "all forms of communication available to us" (Selfe) to make meaning from this ever complex, ever changing, multimodal world, both in the classroom and outside.
Monday, September 14, 2015
Post for Week of 9/14/15
The article written by Selfe and Selfe discussed many key points that really made me pause and reflect on the ways that English is used as the default on most computer webpages. While I do agree with their claims that computer interfaces can represent maps that certainly enact colonialism, at the same time, I do not concur with that it always does so, even when English is set as the norm. While I concede that cartographers often have a focus that serves to further perpetuate Western patriarchal focus, I also think that this article, perhaps as it was published nearly twenty years ago, fails to adequately consider the influence of World Englishes, or the notion that English "belongs" to non-native speakers just as much as it belongs to those for whom it is a first language. Considering that a greater percentage of the speakers of English reside in countries where the language is as spoken as a second, third, fourth language, challenges the extent to which English "belongs to" the western countries. Furthermore, as English is now widely recognized as the lingua franca, to view the relationship of English to nonnative speakers as solely influenced by colonialism is a bit shortsighted, especially if we consider ways how speakers in the outer and expanding circles not only speak English, but really own the language and have appropriated it for their own purposes, making it so the language can no longer be reduced to merely "the language of the colonizer." While it may be tempting to do so, to suggest that English is not "the" or even "a language" of nonnative speakers and those from previously colonized countries, only serves to further oversimplify the complicated relationship that nonnative speakers have with English and how their proficiency in the language constitutes an important part of their identity.
Similarly, in teaching English in Indonesia for five years, I understand that discomfort and potential danger of what the authors are referring to, that over-emphasizing or a sole focus on English, as doing so may minimize, diminish or devalue other languages of our students. We should want other languages to have presence on webpages and under titles far more respectful and encompassing than under a category of "other." However, this is a fine balance, between acknowledging the reality of our globalized world in that English proficiency does allow for greater mobility, potential development and growth, and not encouraging or further perpetuating such beliefs.
Nevertheless, Selfe and Selfe's piece did push me to question the ways in which educators are rarely taught to critique technology, especially with digital media and technologies in their classroom practices and in their curriculum. I applaud how these scholars invite teachers to involve students in their critiquing, similar to Palmeri's argument, with his emphasis on inviting students to not only consume technology but to produce it. I would argue, evaluating critically, perhaps with the criteria set forth from Galin and Latchaw, the 7 C's, may be a useful standard.
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Week of September 7, 2015
Jason Palmeri's claim really challenged me to rethink my attitude and approach in the use of technology, digital media, hypertext, multimodality, etc, within my Composition Classroom. I agree with his point that too often instructors are under prepared or trained to use technology within the classroom, and consequently, there must be greater effort, time, attention and incentives for educators to learn these programs so they may compliment composition pedagogy, and consider philosophically how the two may harmoniously co-exist.
However, it is an even greater detriment if Composition instructors (squirm. Note to self) were to not consider the ways in which computers and technology can offer multimodes of learning, and ones that may better illustrate and/or provide more efficient tools for Composition students, especially considering how the writing process is so largely recursive.
As I read on, I found myself cringing and shrinking a bit in my seat, considering the ways that I am/have been guilty of ignoring technology in the classroom and its potential to promote growth and further student development in Composition studies. Though the reasons why I've shied away do make sense, as they largely stem from fear and insecurities, feeling of inadequacy and incompetency, I also think that this has become an increasingly easy excuse for me. I have used my technological illiteracy and inabilities and time spent living abroad as an excuse to shy away from growing or developing in both my own knowledge and practice, and by extension, I have limited by students as well.
As a teacher, philosophically speaking, I believe that educators have a hard job in catering to many different levels and types of learners. In theory, I believe that the most effective teachers can comprehend, account for, make amendments in their classes for multiple types of learners. As such, I really ought not to discount technology. Primarily because, I realize that, if I continue to do so, I will only aid in making Composition classes seem antiquated and out of touch with my students' day to day reality and ever more irrelevant to their future digital world.
However, it is an even greater detriment if Composition instructors (squirm. Note to self) were to not consider the ways in which computers and technology can offer multimodes of learning, and ones that may better illustrate and/or provide more efficient tools for Composition students, especially considering how the writing process is so largely recursive.
As I read on, I found myself cringing and shrinking a bit in my seat, considering the ways that I am/have been guilty of ignoring technology in the classroom and its potential to promote growth and further student development in Composition studies. Though the reasons why I've shied away do make sense, as they largely stem from fear and insecurities, feeling of inadequacy and incompetency, I also think that this has become an increasingly easy excuse for me. I have used my technological illiteracy and inabilities and time spent living abroad as an excuse to shy away from growing or developing in both my own knowledge and practice, and by extension, I have limited by students as well.
As a teacher, philosophically speaking, I believe that educators have a hard job in catering to many different levels and types of learners. In theory, I believe that the most effective teachers can comprehend, account for, make amendments in their classes for multiple types of learners. As such, I really ought not to discount technology. Primarily because, I realize that, if I continue to do so, I will only aid in making Composition classes seem antiquated and out of touch with my students' day to day reality and ever more irrelevant to their future digital world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)