Thursday, July 28, 2011

On Teaching & Learning "Out Loud"

Well, today I had the pleasure of reviewing the work of the six people who participated in this Summer 2011 edition of Teaching with Technology. I've sent final evaluation messages with my thoughts and my thanks to each of them. And now it seems appropriate to reflect a bit on the way we conducted the course, and to speculate a bit about the future of this space.

Way back when the course started I posted some thoughts about what I had hoped the course blog would do in my overall plan for the course. Drawing on Krause's article "When Course Blogging Goes Bad," I put some optimism out there into the uni(blogo)versisphere. Now that we are on the other side of July (boo!), 120+ posts later, I can call it: success! We've not only used this space to share ideas, share responses to readings, offer statements of teaching philosophy, show sketches of what students' interactions might look like in online courses and other things. We've also created a resource that others out there may find useful.

If we have done this, do feel free to let us know. I hope that as we head into the Fall and some of us, at least, move on to our next teaching assignment, we will return here occasionally to post about our experiences. We might also share thoughts about a new tool or a new reading we come across.

I know I have a lot of cool new stuff to read that I've been gathering up all Summer. One on my list is a new book by a colleague of mine Brad Melenbacher called Instruction & Technology: Designs for Everyday Learning.

I'm also eager to try out this new drag & drop composing (blogging-esque) platform called WebDoc to see if it might have some legs for classroom use. Looks promising. I know there will be others...

If you are a fellow traveler - a teacher with technology - we hope you'll stop by, leave a comment, or maybe even do a guest post? Drop us a line! And thanks for listening as we learned out loud this semester.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Inspired by many, these are only a few...










Reading Response: Do Your Own Work, Part 2

Creative Commons BBB
Creative Commons BBB by steren.giannini, on Flickr

When I first wrote about redefining my concept of what it means to "do your own work," I focused on Vygotsky's concepts of ZPDs and the importance of collaborative work for learning and development. An equally important issue for redefining what it means to "do your own work" in a technology-rich classroom is the idea of “remixing,” i.e., “writing by appropriation: taking bits, pieces, and ideas and compiling and remixing them in new and innovative ways” (Devoss, pg. 80).

In his article "Copy Your Homework: Free Culture and Fair Use with Wikimedia Commons," Michael Mandiberg discusses how he uses image appropriation (particularly through Wikimedia Commons) in his classes to teach students about issues of plagiarism, copyright, Creative Commons, Public Domain, ethical composition, legal appropriation, etc. As Mandiberg states, "most of [students'] courses have repeatedly enforced the notion that taking anyone else’s work ... is plagiarist theft." Mandiburg's article provides a detailed discussion of broaching these new ideas about authorship and ethical writing with students and broadening their understanding past their ingrained ideas about plagiarism. While plagiarism (outright intellectual stealing) is an important issue that must be addressed, it is important for students to move beyond this simplistic view of what it means to compose ethically and legally - "more than just clarifying what is and is not plagiarism, learning the rules of free and fair use liberates students to embrace the culture of appropriation they grew up in and create works for that context" (Mandiberg).

Mandiberg's article deals specifically with image appropriation. However, teaching students appropriate methods of and contexts for remixing goes far beyond images. In, Because Digital Writing Matters, the discussion on remixing includes examples of a high school student intern and a volunteer for a local nonprofit organization who both remix portions of a previously existing press release used by the organization to create a press release for a new event (on the part of the student intern) and new Web content (on the part of the volunteer).

This is something that I’ve had to do many times work. However, because of my ingrained ideas about plagiarism, I struggled a bit initially with these activities. For example, we recently added a new set of functions to bcpLearning and I was asked to write a section for the help file to teach users how to make use of the new functionality. Even though it made sense to use already existing copy and modify it to work with the new material, I felt a little bit like I was “cheating” and not doing my job because the help file I created was not entirely my own original work. In reality, I was doing my job. Using already existing material helped me create a new document that fit stylistically with the old help file in much less time than if I had I written the new help section without using any of the already existing material. In another instance, I was asked to look at copy for a previous promotional email and modify it for a new product. My manager was not concerned with the fact that I “remixed” previously existing material, he only cared that I completed the projects effectively and in a timely manner.

Were any of these “remixing” activities acts of plagiarism? No. The intern’s, volunteer’s, and my own activities were all appropriate for their contexts and the expectations governing those situations. As this is a common scenario in the workplace (which will only become more prominent as digital communication builds in prevalence), it is important that remixing be taught in the classroom along with specific discussions regarding the differences in expectation for various composition environments. This will allow students to develop both the skills to create remixed projects and the ability to determine what expectations they are operating under and whether “remixing” is appropriate in a given situation. I particularly liked the two remix assignments discussed by Shari in our course, one “taken” and one “allowed to take.” This represents for me one potential option for teaching students about remixing and the different expectations for different writing environments.

Sources

1. DeVoss, Dànielle Nicole., Elyse Eidman-Aadahl, and Troy Hicks. Because Digital Writing Matters: Improving Student Writing in Online and Multimedia Environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010. Print.

2. Mandiberg, Michael. "Copy Your Homework: Free Culture and Fair Use with Wikimedia Commons." Learning Through Digital Media Experiments in Technology and Pedagogy. Ed. R. Trebor Scholz. Web. 27 July 2011. .

Digital Writing Research (Part Two): Book Review

Similar to McKee and DeVoss, I have noticed that there is a lack of methodological research content in the digital writing realm. Research polices, practices, and procedures are often not clearly outlined; thus, I have had issues with fully comprehending electronic writing provisions as a researcher and educator. My decision to review Digital Writing Research: Technologies, Methodologies, and Ethical Issues was based on my lack of understanding in the digital writing research realm. As a composition instructor who teaches research methods, I believe that it is important for me to understand the foundations of digital writing research (as digitization is increasingly consuming the academic atmosphere). Thankfully, this anthology has provided me with a concrete infrastructure for research and teaching purposes.

The articles in this compilation are methodologically and ethically diverse. However, the editors present a five section organizational format that helps the reader understand the different divisions of digital research. Although diversity is prevalent, there is one consistent aspect among the articles: reader connectivity. Each article challenges the reader to explore the derived concepts while using it as a foundation for potential further study. This critical-thinking concept inspires the reader to confront the current conventions (or lack thereof) of digital writing research. For example, in “Digital Spaces, Online Environments, and Participant Research: Interfacing with Institutional Review Boards,” William P. Banks and Michelle F. Eble pose unanswered IRB related questions which prompts the reader to seek answers for digital participant approval, blog comments usage (authorship and/or research participant labeling), and CMS related content. 

Additionally, some articles present innovative digital research approaches. In “Messy Contexts: Research as a Rhetorical Situation,” Rebecca Rickly provides a rhetorical research integration rationale (in the technological realm) for graduate-level methodological purposes. To achieve a rhetorical research stance, Rickly suggests the teaching of disciplinary methodologies, analytical research practices, and real research studies for ethical, critical, and rhetorical gain. The outlined approach helps educators understand rhetoric’s affiliation with research, and thus, provides a rhetoric and research integration foundation for digitization purposes.

Digital Writing Research: Technologies, Methodologies, and Ethical Issues is certainly a resource guide for digital research purposes. The methodological and ethical implications provide researchers and educators of research with a solid infrastructure for digital research practices. Additionally, the anthology provides a call for action dimension for digital research standards.



McKee, Heidi A., and Dànielle Nicole. DeVoss. Digital Writing Research: Technologies, Methodologies, and Ethical Issues. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton, 2007. Print.

Book review

In The Digital Writing Workshop, Troy Hicks introduces digital tools to the writing workshop pedagogy. The book begins by providing an overview of the workshop approach by revealing that many composionists have for the last thirty years welcomed the approach in teaching writing. But, based on authors’ experience as a teacher, his observations and conversations with fellow teachers, the workshop approach is ironically not present in many writing teachers’ repertoire. This subtle discrepancy between what is preached by practitioners in the field but not practiced in the classroom is what motivates Hicks to write his book. In justifying the need to connect the workshop approach with digital writing, Hicks says: “I intend to place digital writing tools in a context that those of us familiar with the writing workshop approach can understand and apply them to create better writers”(5). This book is a call to all writing instructors to re-imagine how teaching writing using the workshop format can be enhanced if digital writing tools like blogs, wikis, social networks, podcasts and digital stories were integrated in the teaching. In addition, because new literacies, emerging technologies and digital writing continue to complicate “the relationship between reader, writer and text”, this book becomes handy resource to guide teachers who wish to embrace digital writing workshop in their teaching.

In introducing digital writing workshop, Hicks begins by first acknowledging that a number of teachers in the field are actively embracing new technologies in their writing instruction. He however questions how meaningful the integration is in enhancing students’ learning experiences. What Hicks finds problematic is that, even as teachers continue to show a lot of enthusiasm in integrating new digital tools in their teaching, they unfortunately seem to be dragging the traditional mindset into the new literacies. Quoting scholars like Sara Kadjer, Hicks wonders whether doing something old with new technology helps in improving the reading and writing skills of our students. According to Hicks, what teachers are yet to understand is that, while new literacies and media rich environments are enabling in today’s digital age, they have critical implications for the writing workshop approach. Hicks appreciates existing literature in the field which explains how some of the digital tools work as well as provide different ways of engaging students in digital writing. However, according to Hicks, current literature does not provide a vision for what it means to teach in a digital writing workshop. The book is written to fill this void.

What is more appealing about Hicks methodology is that it does not propose drastic measures in integrating digital tools to the writing workshop. Instead, his approach is built on the core principles of writing workshop pedagogy which are centered on teaching the writer and not the writing. The principles, as indentified in the book, are: students choice about topic and genre, active revision with constant feedback between peer and teacher, use of author’s craft as basis for instruction, publication beyond the classroom, and broad visions of assessment that include both process and product. The chapters of the book are structured under these five principles where each is discussed in detail. Many teachers will find the last chapter most useful because Hicks provides step by step guide in form of questions on how the digital writing workshop can be implemented.

Chapter two of the book introduces some of the digital tools. A number of options on tools for gathering, tagging, saving and sharing a variety of information students find online are provided. Hicks recommends the use of Really Simple Syndication (RSS) because it is a tool that allows students to subscribe to web content so that all the information which is related to their research interest is gathered on their behalf. This is particularly useful because it helps students not to become overwhelmed by the massive information they encounter online. In addition, Hicks indentifies some social bookmarking tools like Diigo, Clipmarks and Delicious that are useful for tagging, saving and sharing the information. Hicks draws our attention to the need to use these tools to foster students’ choice and inquiry; a crucial component of the workshop approach. He thus posits, “choice, within reason, forms the foundation of a writing workshop; a firm belief that students can and will, with guidance, make appropriate choices as writers directs our thinking as teachers”( 15). The proposed tools are thus meant to help teachers guide students in making the best choices; to nurture them to become better writers. In chapter three, Hicks introduces other tools that teachers can use to confer with students. Such tools are wikis, blogs and collaborative word processors like google.docs. These tools can be used by students to collaborate with peers on projects, assist students in their revision as well give teachers an opportunity to offer formative evaluation during students’ writing process.

The approach Hicks takes in discussing the aforementioned tools adds strength to his book. He does not just “drop names” of the tools but shows the “what” “how” and “when” of the tools in a number of ways. One, he uses conversational tone in his writing. His language is concise, simple, and straightforward and this connects the reader to what he is telling them. This tone affords the book not to be just essayistic and but practical as well. Throughout the book he asks his readers to pause their reading for a moment, and practice using the tools. When he refers his readers to a particular tool or resource, he would for example say: “there are two websites that I suggest you visit before you read on, each of which will explain the concept at hand in a clear and practical manner…” (19). Besides, Hicks does not stop at proposing “what” tools— he explores the affordances and disffordances of each, giving teachers an opportunity to compare and make choices of which ones are likely to work in their localized circumstances. In addition, after recommending the exciting tools, he also draws teacher’s attention to the consequences of composing with each. For example, in chapter three he recommends that teachers complement their written feedback to students with audio feedback. Even while providing tools that can facilitate such a process, he cautions that “ an unscrupulous student could take your audio file and post publicly online or otherwise remix it and use it for nefarious purposes” (51). In “when” of the tools, he reminds teachers to consider material circumstances of institutions where they work and the institutional structures and policies that regulate the integration of technologies in their teaching.

In summary, many teachers wishing to integrate digital tools in teaching writing in K-12 classrooms and also at college level will need this book. The book will appeal to many because it is not only written from a personal experience but from a number of teachers experiences. Hicks shares what has worked in different classrooms and what has failed. The entire book is filled with screenshots of students’ works, sample assignments and projects descriptions, evaluation rubrics, and a detailed appendix with sample conceptual materials. The book has a companion website at digitalwritingworkshop.ning.com/ where teachers continue discussions about the digital tools at Hicks’ blog.

Like many digital writing books, the book’s proposed pedagogies faces the challenge of keeping up with emerging technologies and the rapidly changing digital landscape. However, at the moment, the book is needed because it challenges the proponents of process and workshop approaches to re-think how some of their pedagogical practices might still be subscribing to the product paradigm. In introducing digital tools to writing workshop pedagogy, Hicks provides a vision for where teaching of writing needs to be going.

Hicks, Troy. The Digital Writing Workshop. 1st ed. Heinemann, 2009. Print.

Teachnology Statements: Traditional and Remixed

If writing is hard work as so many, from Ernest Hemingway to E.B. White, say it is, then the teaching of writing is equally hard. When you add the swelling current of technology and consider the new forms writing can take, the task becomes if not harder, certainly more complex. It's in these times that it becomes imperative to have one finger on the pulse of students and another tracing technology. That said, I am committed to using technologies in ways that promote core teaching principles such as:

1. promoting collaboration and social learning
2. encouraging individuality and identity
3. facilitating rich and dynamic relationships between participants
4. providing clear learning outcomes and strategies for reaching those outcomes
5. anticipating and addressing current trends in writing and communication


Addressing these five goals is a matter of using technology responsibly by keeping in mind that technologies:

1. should be viewed and considered locally and seen as an exercise in literacy, beckoning questions like "What's the value of this literacy to these people at this time?"
2. should be viewed in terms of their usefulness and not in terms of their release dates - occasionally analog tools may be the most appropriate in a given moment
3. should not be used as a way of simply spicing up a curriculum; technology, instead, should be used to allow for new or better learning opportunities
5. should never serve as gate-keeping device to important information (i.e. equal access to materials) which prevents certain people from performing certain tasks

It's my hope that by staying true to these core beliefs that students will:

1. See the value of technology in enriching writing tasks
2. Learn to use different media to communicate messages
3. Become dexterous in their use of technology (i.e. see and understand the affordances and value of different technologies)
4. Feel comfortable with the technologies in use and find ways to use them as tools in their personal and professional lives

remix

Here's my teachnology remix which focuses on using technologies for their usefulness and affordances rather than their release dates or popularity. It's a satirical infomercial for the fictitious SmartBored6000 which hopes to take the "teacher out of teaching" and eliminate all the menial tasks of education. Hope you enjoy (disclaimer: I'm not a videographer).



Worlds of Warcraft and Community: a review of _My Life as a Night Elf Prince_

A lonely teenager sits in front of his super computer. The shades are pulled. Pop cans litter the floor. He’s immersed. He’s addicted. He’s playing the popular, massively multi-player role-play game, World of Warcraft (WoW). He’s got no friends and stops playing only for what’s biologically necessary.

These images - the stereotypes we often associate with serious gamers, especially those who play WoW - are not only debunked in Bonnie Nardi's book My Life as a Night Elf Priest: an anthropological account of World of Warcraft, they're totally supplanted. Instead of the lonely nerd, Nardi's book paints WoW as a vibrant, diverse space with as many happy couples and burgeoning professionals as maladjusted gamer freaks.

Nardi's account is based on her months of playing the game, and the successes of this book are many, especially for those interested in "new means of forming and sustaining human relationships and collaborations through digital technology" (5).

That an anthropologist is able to compile a book length work on a digital environment is evidence alone that our social worlds are changing. Digital environments are robust, complex and fertile, and Nardi documents how WoW is successful in creating one of the largest online communities on the planet.

As an aspiring teacher, one with aims of teaching in both the real and digital worlds, Nardi's account is as inspiring as it is informative. More than just debunking classic stereotypes, Nardi's ethnography lays bare how a "stimulating visual environment" can not only sustain but create communities. Using activity theory and the work of John Dewey, Nardi chronicles how a central artifact - in this case software - creates an aesthetic experience shared by diverse peoples worldwide. Her account blends her own personal experiences with those of her guildmates and other WoWers, and what results is a glimpse into the possibilities of digital communities and video games as spaces where diverse people doing diverse things come together under one digital roof.

First and foremost, Nardi succinctly and thoroughly introduces what she calls a “new medium:” video games. Characterizing them as performative (not in the Judith Butler sense, but in the Tiger Woods sense), immersive (but not necessarily addictive), and beautiful, Nardi develops an argument that WoW builds a sustainable community through its software.

Nardi's account turned my previous assumption about videos games on its head. In the past I thought of video games as simply a "fun" platform for educational activities. With bright colors, interesting graphics and enticing game play, I saw video games as being deployed to make the most menial tasks in education more fun (e.g. multiplication tables, grammar, etc.). What we see as we trace Nardi's narrative is a much more complex and nuanced view of video games, one that affords some important educational concepts and strategies.

Video games become much more than a way of making menial tasks fun - though they are capable of just that; they also become places that facilitate the making and managing of community. Video games (WoW in particular) motivate people to accomplish tasks and create relationships, resulting in the well known “passion” of WoWers (41). Like many human activities, WoW entices its participants to continue playing by dangling a carrot in front their mouth. But that's not all. More than just a linear quest for lunch, WoW uses its expansive, social world and rewards to keep players playing.

In this way, WoW possesses the powerful ability to motivate performance, an ability largely attributable to WoW's rules and paratemers which allow users to interact within Raessen's activity hierarchy of interpretation, reconfiguration and construction. It's in this hierarchy that users first familiarize themselves with the rules (either through the game's built-in tutorials or through the help of other players), configure their world from existing objects and possibilities, and then, if they're savvy and willing, construct things they want/need to make their experience better.

Nardi’s depiction of WoW clearly illustrates what this hierarchy looks like in real-time, and her illustration uses heavy doses of legitimate peripheral participation and peer scaffolding. Here’s an example: users generally start out as “noobs” -- more on this phrasing later -- and as they slowly gain their bearings become more and more acclimated with the interworkings of WoW. Over time, as their literacy of the game increases, they learn how to manipulate the game and its interface to fit their needs, sometimes revealing holes or problems along the way. This process, however, does not happen alone, rendering that initial image of the lonely high schooler too busy to eat untrue. Instead, communities large and small, planned and haphazard, help each other through the various stages of interaction. Message boards, guilds, personal websites all invite and host player-to-player interaction and activity. What results is new knowledge and a more enjoyable experience for those participating in the activity.

Nardi’s account also demonstrates how members of seemingly disparate communities can be soldered together if there’s a hot enough heat source: in this case, game play. Nardi and others describe this phenomenon as the “magic circle,” wherein an experience can only be fully understood by those who are involved in it, which is the theoretical answer to the question: Why in the world do you play that silly game for hours? Players enter this magic circle - this escape from the real world - and simultaneously enter an experience that only other players can relate to, which again creates a sense of community between players.

A byproduct of this magic circle community is the WoW vernacular that rears its head early and often in Nardi's work. Immersed in the world of the game, players create their own short-hand language that allows them to communicate with others who are equally immersed. In this way, players, because of the software-created-community devise their own discourse to describe various phenomena in the game (e.g. new players [noobs], reaching a new level [leveling], or being brought back to life by fellow players [resing]).

One of Nardi’s most interesting points is her comparison between WoW and SecondLife which are often spoke of in the same breath. Nardi describes how the built-in rules of each software largely dictate the types of interactions that occur. SecondLife, owned by Linden Labs, is, for lack of a better term, a free-for-all. Users are allowed and encouraged to build new spaces and content for the game and there’s generally an “anything goes” frame of mind; hence, SL is viewed as a sort of ideal world where social norms are vacated, yielding super-sexualized people, places and things. WoW, on the other hand, is very selective and restrictive about what happens. Equally expansive, WoW is considerably less democratic in the way that the software is maintained. But this isn’t a problem, according to Nardi, who speculates that WoW’s presence in so many distinct cultures might make it impossible to keep every member happy: another important lesson for teachers working in the digital realm, I’d say.

More than anything, Nardi’s account lays bare how important moderation (i.e. moderating content, rules, etc.) and community are in creating an engaging artifact. Though her access to WoW’s parent company Blizzard was non-existent, she makes a pretty strong argument that they pull the right strings, a fact that’s materially supported by the millions of world-wide members. The major takeaway of this book is that digital spaces (and video games), when calibrated correctly and designed intelligently, can cast a much wider net than previously envisioned. Nardi’s demographic and ethnographic data suggest that most people can benefit from the sorts of community building that happens in WoW, it’s just a matter of creating a space where it's not only possible, but encouraged.

However, because this is an anthropological account, not all of the book is germane to teaching. Later sections deal with phenomena generally outside of that scope like addiction, but still provide interesting reading.

Digital Writing Research (Part One): Book Summary

A compilation of scholarly articles, representative of various research theories, congregate in Digital Writing Research: Technologies, Methodologies, and Ethical Issues. The collection highlights electronic writings influence on research by providing methodological and ethical perspectives. Each article provides an innovative rationale in the electronic writing research realm, relating to digital documents, digital production, and digital communication. Additionally, each article attempts to provide plausible solutions to the complexities of digital writing research while integrating further queries.

The metamorphosis of writing inspired by digitization in professional and personal environments, influenced the creation of Digital Writing Research: Technologies, Methodologies, and Ethical Issue. The lack of methodological and ethical exploration toward digital writing was a contributing factor as well.

The compilation is divided into five sections. The articles in section one examine the techniques (advantages and disadvantages) of digital research. Banks and Eble provide an overview of Institutional Review Boards and address the intricate nature of IRBs. The authors provide IRB inquiry scenarios as way of presenting the difficulties of human participant protection (and beyond) in digital environments. DePew purposes a multiple method system (triangulation) in his article. He provides a rationale for utilizing a heterogeneous methodology to study discourse. Sidler examines the scavenger (analyzes various texts) and gazer (externalizing subjects) researcher roles. In her article, she discusses the benefits and ethical complexities of online research.

Section two articles represent universal research theories. Sapienza reflects on his research in Russian virtual communities and use it as a basis to suggest online research ethos intertwined with technologist, cultural-competency, and scholar community memberships. Pandey’s article presents the advantages and disadvantages of postnational digital writing research. The article concludes by providing a rationale for postnational based ethics in research for literacy understanding purposes. Smith provides a methodological and ethical analysis of research interactions in international virtual environments. She concludes by providing ethnography-based suggestions for future acclimation.

The articles in section three represent digitization’s influence on action-situated research. Hart-Davidson discusses the time-use diary research method and its impact on digital writing. He outlines the methodological advantages and disadvantages of utilizing the record-keeping method and provides use-based research suggestions. Addison examines mobile electronics affect on literacy research by providing examples from previous studies. Geisler and Slattery discuss video screen captures ability to provide a detailed record of the digital writing process.

The fourth section moves toward electronic text and multimodal research. Blythe examines the coding process of digital data. In his article, he discusses the process complexities, and possibilities of this activity. Hilligoss and Williams review various research techniques used for visual designations. The authors conclude by providing recommendations for visual text production for appropriation in the digital world. Romberger suggests the integration of feminism and ecology into digital writing. In her article, she reflects on her Microsoft Word research to substantiate her theory. Kimme Hea examines the challenges of web research in relation to social space, mutability, information and data interaction, and visual atmospheres. She concludes by discussing the ethical aspect of web research for current reevaluation purposes. McIntire-Strasburg article focuses on multimedia’s advantages and disadvantages.  She provides recommendations for equitable multimedia research.

Section Five addresses the multitudinous dimension of digital writing research. Blair and Tulley reflect on an inquiry-based study that examined the digital literacy practices of young women. The authors discuss ethics, feminism, digital writing, and authorship. They conclude by describing digital researchers multimodal capabilities. Lopez, Burnett, and Chandler discuss the interaction process of collaborative researchers with diverse mechanical practices. The authors reflect on their videogames literacy study, and use the content to further describe research practices as a whole. Hawkes discusses the complexity of digital writing research. She references researcher/participant-based personal information, electronic records, and online governmental surveillance. She concludes by providing researcher protection advice. Reilly and Eyman discuss the need for analytical electronic citation methods for digital documents. The authors discuss diverse citation methodologies, deviating from the norm, to assist future researchers. Rickly argues the case for rhetorical research integration into graduate writing courses.  

Each article provides a platform for future methodological and ethical investigation in the digital writing research realm.



McKee, Heidi A., and Dànielle Nicole. DeVoss. Digital Writing Research: Technologies, Methodologies, and Ethical Issues. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton, 2007. Print.

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Book Review

This represents a brief overview of Richard Selfe’s Sustainable Computer Environments. Click HERE for my complete review.

Richard Selfe's stated purpose for his book, Sustainable Computer Environments is to describe for teachers, administrators and staff members in English studies departments and programs "how to create a robust, sustainable system of support for technology-rich teaching and learning efforts" (Selfe, Preface).

Selfe begins the book by acknowledging the difficulties inherent in these endeavors due to both the rapidly changing developments in technology and a lack in English and Language arts teachers' access to adequate professional development to enact standards for technological literacy as well as their lack of influence in the development of those standards or their implementation - factors that often create a "debilitating dynamic of blame that distracts teachers, administrators, and staff members from being active, critical, and productive managers of technology in their classrooms, schools, and institutions" (Selfe, pg. 8). While the influencing factors make it easy to understand how this type of dynamic can develop, it doesn't negate the fact that allowing this dynamic to continue or develop in the first place can result in "paralysis, misdirection, and a lack of productive action" (Selfe, pg. 11).

However, Selfe firmly believes in the possibilities for developing sustainable technology-rich learning environments. "Culture of Support" is the term Selfe uses to describe his alternative to the dynamic of blame. In order to develop this culture of support, Selfe claims that three crucial steps must be taken.

1. Recognize "the kinds of support that teachers require to integrate technology - in a meaningful way - into English and language arts classes" and then commit to "creating a culture that supports this effort" (Selfe, pg. 23).

2. Enable teachers of English and language arts to "assume a leadership role in creating and sustaining such a culture of support" (Selfe, pg. 23).

3. Identify the range of "primary or interested stakeholders who see the benefits of establishing and participating in such an effort" (Self, pg. 24).

Selfe's goal is to re-enfranchise teachers in the technology decision-making process by encouraging them to become "technological activists: folks who manage and shape technological change rather than simply falling prey to it" (Selfe, pg. 146). Selfe’s book provides practical advice for teachers, administrators and others to be active in developing strong and sustainable technology-rich programs through a methodology of People, First; Pedagogy, Second; Technology, Third in order to maintain a strong culture of support and put an end to the dynamic of blame.

Overall, I believe this book provides excellent information and I would highly recommend it for anyone working in any capacity in the English Studies and Language Arts who desires to be an influential part in creating new technology-rich learning environments or improving already-existing programs.

Source
Selfe, Richard. Sustainable Computer Environments: Cultures of Support in English Studies and Language Arts. Cresskill, N.J: Hampton, 2005. Print.

Book Review: “Teaching English Language Learners Through Technology” by Tony Erben, Ruth Ban and Martha Castaneda

I chose this text out of all the results that came up after an Amazon search for “teaching for language justice, technology.” This text appears to be designed for instructors in K-12 settings who are struggling to help ELL’s learn content- area curriculum as well as English, with technology being the tool to assist these students in engaging in the learning process.

The first section of the text, “Not All ELL”s are the Same,” reminds the reader that even though the title of the book suggests that this text generalizes the experience of English Language Learners, it does not and neither should teachers. The authors also provide several vignettes about ELL’s. The subsection titled “stages of cultural adjustment” was incredibly useful because knowing the stages and which stage a particular ELL student is in can dramatically effect the interaction of the student with the particular technology you are attempting to utilize. This can certainly facilitate technology choices. The stages of cultural adjustment are:

- Honeymoon stage

- Hostility stage

- Home stage

- Assimilation stage

- Re-entry shock stage

The rest of the book follows in this fashion, integrating second-language acquisition theory with technology use in the classroom. It is most certainly William Labov meets twitter, with a pinch of pedagogical theory.

Section 3.2, titled, “E-Creation Tools and Self-Made Computer –Based Resources: Getting ELL’s to Play and be Creative With Language” was an important section for understanding how to engage ELL’s in playing with language. This section highlights specific software and web-based programs for teachers to use. It covers everything from a subsection titled, “Presentation Software; PowerPoint” to a program I had never heard of called Hot Potatoes. I’m not sure if this is because Hot Potatoes is an older technology, or if it is one that specifically helps ELL’s, but it is useful to learn about technologies that can help students whose first language is not English.

The rest of the third chapter has tools for improving reading/writing literacies (wikis, writeboard, blogs, webquests), E-assessment (less applicable for writing instructors).

At the end of the text is a long Resources list, which provides the teacher with several places to go when attempting to resolve an issue, organize an online activity, or explore new innovations in technology and in technological pedagogy. The Resource section is not comprehensive, but it provides several new tools that I had not previously been exposed to.

This text would be useful for instructors who are teaching online or hybrid courses who have English language learners in their classes. Although this book has activities, tools and instruction for the K-12 setting, I think that there are several applications for freshman composition, particularly for our course that is often dominated by English language learners, Preparation for College Writing.

Monday, July 25, 2011

If I was to build a tool...

An incidence happened during the symposium that made me begin to re-evaluate the affordances of iMeet. While I feel the tool has potential in the future, particularly as an educational tool, at the moment there are features that might make teachers feel a bit hesitant to embrace it .The tool promises that once you set up your meeting room, the only people who are able to enter the room are guests who should be invited through an email by the host. The guests will be able to enter your room once you give them the key to access the room. Here’s is my problem. When I was doing an iMeet demo during the symposium, Mike entered the room without my invite. At that moment, it did not occur to me that I had not invited him. Later, when I realized what had happened, I began wondering if the technology provides security and privacy for both hosts and guests. So I started reading more about the tool and one of the recommendations they have is that: “change your room key often to fend off meeting crashers”! I think this is major disaffordance because having to change the URLs all the time may confuse students— what if the URLs lead them to the wrong meeting rooms!

Some of the reasons why I admired the tool was because I was able to do video conferencing as well as have my students download lecture materials and upload their assignments. I am worried that if other people might have access to the room, the class privacy is compromised. This limits what my students and I can do with this tool. If I was to build the tool, I would enhance its security and privacy features. I would also think about a feature to record class discussions or chatting (like in Convore)-- basically record all the activities that take place in the room for future reference.

But, like I said above, iMeet has a potential to improve and become a handy technology for educators. At the moment, the people behind the technology seem to be working day and night to improve its features. Some of the concerns I had when I started experimenting with it was the constant echo during conferencing. Recently they introduced a softphone feature which reduces the echo when people talk through their computer. iMeet has also gone mobile to allow people to host and hold meting while on the go.

I would still keep the tool as a backup plan in my syllabus hoping that as the owners continue building the tool, they address some of the concerns I raise.