If it is okay, I would actually like to start with my impression of the CCCC Position Statement, and then pinpoint the places where Faigley's argument directly critiques it.
With no official segue, I'll just dive right in. I did not find any large bones to pick with the 5 assumptions. I did notice, however, that they sound a lot like WSU's learning goals involving information literacy. Also, the problem I do notice with the assumptions is the fact that students are not often "reflective practitioners" of technology, nor do they often "apply digital technologies to solve substantial problems." Yes, that is what we as educators want them to do. However, as technology develops, use becomes automatic and intuitive to the point that deep reflection and problem solving increase in difficulty, but are possible with the right amount of prodding.
I did, however, become skeptical of what I call the political campaign promises made in the list of what "administrators with responsibilities for writing programs" will do for students and faculty, especially "assur[ing] that all matriculated students have sufficient access to requisite technology," "assur[ing] that faculty have ready access to diverse forms of technical and professional development before and while teaching in digital environments." Et cetera, et cetera. However, the bummer is that WSU's Y2K Zzusis snafu is proof enough that these promises are often too large to keep. Also, many of these promises are contingent upon funds and budgets allowing for successful implementation of new technologies.
As a side note, I also found it interesting that they made such bold statements against machine scoring of writing. In Bill Condon's assessment class last fall, we discussed a lot of these issues in assessment, and I even delved deeper into some of it for my final project. Their statement against sounded a bit like "this is what we advocate as proper use of technology, but this is what we think is malevolent misuse, even though it might be a nice shortcut." It is like they could hear people's inner dialogues saying, "if only we could outsource essay grading to robots or other willing minions!" and CCCC was saying "Hell no don't even think about it!" And yet, sadly, that's basically what the SAT/ACT/GRE have morphed into doing. And universities have been battling this assessment issue ever since.
Faigley's lament about the abuse of resources and writing teachers brings the idealistic feel of the CCCC assumptions and promises back to reality. The first place where his critique directly contradicts the CCCC position statement is thus: "...providing venues for the discussion of public issues does not necessarily lead to a more informed public, increased civic engagement, or enhanced democracy" (Faigley, 36). In the context of CCCC, I take this to mean that getting students to think critically about technology by using technology in the classroom is still idealistic, considering that academic use of technology still differs in the intent to which students use technology during their free time.
On page 39, Faigley asserts that "...Web sites need to be placed in a larger perspective. Pointing to their work as proof that digital literacy necessarily leads to democratic participation and civic engagement is another version of the good classroom leading to good society." I agree wholeheartedly, and hear the sentiment he argues against in the CCCC Position Statement. Just because the committee motions to include technology in academia, this does not mean that there is a relevant context or a constructive use beyond tinkering with different applications. The position statement presents some gaps between what they claim to provide, and how the provisions will lead to direct outcomes. As we all discussed in class today, interfaces like Blackboard, Angel, whatever require a lot of expertise, improvisation when they fail to work, and an institutional learning curve before they allow for more creativity and utility. Yeah....
Works Cited
Faigley, Lester. "Literacy after the Revolution." College Composition and Communication 48.1 (1997): 30-43.
CCCC Position Statement on Teaching, Learning, and Assessing Writing in Digital Environments. Conference on College Composition and Communication. (2004).
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Lanham, Hawisher/Selfe, Cooper/Selfe: From Trepidation and Awe of Technology to "Revolution"
As usual, I'm not entirely sure where to start. However, I think I will start with Lanham, because he provided me with the most comic relief during my intensive weekend reading schedule. I will start by presenting quotes from Lanham and then follow up with the comments I wrote in the margins. Lanham asserts in the first sentence: "Perhaps the real question for literary study now is not whether or not students will be reading Great Traditional Books or Relevant Modern ones in the future, but whether they will be reading books at all" (265), to which I respond "Oh here we go! If you were worried then, what about now?!" I repeat this in a couple other places in my notes as well. He then describes computers as "handy engines to produce printed texts" (265), to which I reply "LOLZ." Bee Tee Dubs, is Lanham still alive or no? Either way, I'm sure his mind is officially blown by Kindles, iPods, iPads, etc.
I was intrigued by his fear of copyright issues in the future, what will happen to traditional notions of text and words, the extent to which the literary field will follow or resist technological trends, and his desire to "break loose" by briefly inserting a goofy font into his academic article. I also admired the awe with which he conceptualized these novel inventions, especially since I know I have begun to take novelty for granted despite being about average on the technologically savvy scale. Furthermore, much of what he predicts now exists; however, I think he was a bit optimistic that we would construct concrete solutions to potential problems, making smooth transitions into new technologies for all. Take copyright infringement for instance: YES, there are all kinds of issues with physical, intellectual, visual property, and YES, society still struggles to legally define these rules as new online applications and website for posting "stuff" multiply. Now, as for redefining the norm that "apoplexy seems to come more naturally than apocalypse to literary scholars when we think about technology" (288), I think he'd be interested in the evolution of English studies and technology. Disclaimer before I continue: I'm not trying to start a bar brawl with the literature majors. Therefore, I will tread as lightly as possible, while still reiterating what rhet/comp and lit majors have seen. First of all, Lanham did not predict a splitting in English between literature/literary studies and rhet/comp studies, with rhet/comp grappling most with writing, pedagogy, and technological use. It is 100% true that at WSU all the English faculty bridge the gap as much as possible, by bringing digital humanities into literature and pedagogy, but historically, not all English departments have been as proactive in this endeavor, although efforts continually improve.
Therefore, on the whole, I do think that Lanham was outdated as far as the way he described possible technological advancements, but he was fairly accurate in terms of outcomes, with only a few oversights. While he expresses some trepidation about what may happen with change, he overrides it with curiosity and awe.
If Lanham represents traditional notions of learning, reading, and writing while wondering how technology might alter this system, Cooper and Selfe compose the other half of the spectrum, which is complete faith that technology will undo all things bad about the traditional classroom setting, in favor of egalitarian expression and learning for all. Since you'll hear more about my opinions on Cooper and Selfe during the in-class critique, I'll just say here that Cooper and Selfe make too strong of a case against the traditional classroom setting as well as too optimistic a case that technology will fix all problems connected to tradition. Their desire for computer forums to replace (to as much a degree as possible) the traditional classroom confuses me, because they argued this in the 1990s, before discussion forums were the norm at all, and also because even in the post-2000s, educators struggle to figure out the right balance of new and traditional learning.
Now, if Lanham and Cooper/Selfe make the extreme ends of the technological acceptance spectrum, Hawisher and Selfe present the most realistic picture of technology's pros and cons in the classroom, keeping in mind the time in which it was written. As a side note, Hawisher and Selfe also made me LOL when they mentioned "overhead projection system[s]" (61), "drill-and-practice grammar software" (56), but their conceptualization of the technology of the time made their skepticism more realistic. After all, who can really get excited about grammar software and hot, blazing overheads with a short fuse? Furthermore, Hawisher and Selfe worry that, because teachers are so starry-eyed over what technology can possibly do (*cough* Cooper and Selfe *cough*) (58), teachers may be overlooking student access issues and issues of control, referring to Foucault's panopticon. Therefore, they argue to maintain a view of technology that acknowledges both "paradox and promise" (64). In other words, remain objective about proper time and place for new technologies.
In sum, I argue that Hawisher and Selfe present the most centrist, decade-appropriate, and transcendent critique technological use in academic settings, when evaluating it in terms of Cooper/Selfe and Lanham.
I was intrigued by his fear of copyright issues in the future, what will happen to traditional notions of text and words, the extent to which the literary field will follow or resist technological trends, and his desire to "break loose" by briefly inserting a goofy font into his academic article. I also admired the awe with which he conceptualized these novel inventions, especially since I know I have begun to take novelty for granted despite being about average on the technologically savvy scale. Furthermore, much of what he predicts now exists; however, I think he was a bit optimistic that we would construct concrete solutions to potential problems, making smooth transitions into new technologies for all. Take copyright infringement for instance: YES, there are all kinds of issues with physical, intellectual, visual property, and YES, society still struggles to legally define these rules as new online applications and website for posting "stuff" multiply. Now, as for redefining the norm that "apoplexy seems to come more naturally than apocalypse to literary scholars when we think about technology" (288), I think he'd be interested in the evolution of English studies and technology. Disclaimer before I continue: I'm not trying to start a bar brawl with the literature majors. Therefore, I will tread as lightly as possible, while still reiterating what rhet/comp and lit majors have seen. First of all, Lanham did not predict a splitting in English between literature/literary studies and rhet/comp studies, with rhet/comp grappling most with writing, pedagogy, and technological use. It is 100% true that at WSU all the English faculty bridge the gap as much as possible, by bringing digital humanities into literature and pedagogy, but historically, not all English departments have been as proactive in this endeavor, although efforts continually improve.
Therefore, on the whole, I do think that Lanham was outdated as far as the way he described possible technological advancements, but he was fairly accurate in terms of outcomes, with only a few oversights. While he expresses some trepidation about what may happen with change, he overrides it with curiosity and awe.
If Lanham represents traditional notions of learning, reading, and writing while wondering how technology might alter this system, Cooper and Selfe compose the other half of the spectrum, which is complete faith that technology will undo all things bad about the traditional classroom setting, in favor of egalitarian expression and learning for all. Since you'll hear more about my opinions on Cooper and Selfe during the in-class critique, I'll just say here that Cooper and Selfe make too strong of a case against the traditional classroom setting as well as too optimistic a case that technology will fix all problems connected to tradition. Their desire for computer forums to replace (to as much a degree as possible) the traditional classroom confuses me, because they argued this in the 1990s, before discussion forums were the norm at all, and also because even in the post-2000s, educators struggle to figure out the right balance of new and traditional learning.
Now, if Lanham and Cooper/Selfe make the extreme ends of the technological acceptance spectrum, Hawisher and Selfe present the most realistic picture of technology's pros and cons in the classroom, keeping in mind the time in which it was written. As a side note, Hawisher and Selfe also made me LOL when they mentioned "overhead projection system[s]" (61), "drill-and-practice grammar software" (56), but their conceptualization of the technology of the time made their skepticism more realistic. After all, who can really get excited about grammar software and hot, blazing overheads with a short fuse? Furthermore, Hawisher and Selfe worry that, because teachers are so starry-eyed over what technology can possibly do (*cough* Cooper and Selfe *cough*) (58), teachers may be overlooking student access issues and issues of control, referring to Foucault's panopticon. Therefore, they argue to maintain a view of technology that acknowledges both "paradox and promise" (64). In other words, remain objective about proper time and place for new technologies.
In sum, I argue that Hawisher and Selfe present the most centrist, decade-appropriate, and transcendent critique technological use in academic settings, when evaluating it in terms of Cooper/Selfe and Lanham.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Foucault and Ohmann: I'm Watching You!
After reading Foucault's "Panopticism" and Ohmann's "Literacy, Technology, and Monopoly Capital," it is really hard to figure out how to express all the connections I made on this linear piece of paper. However, I will do my best to be as linear/logical as possible.
I take Foucault's argument to be that the most effective tool for efficiency, control, production, and social interaction (a lot of political and economic metaphors, which I also noticed in Ohmann), is a mechanism, of any sort, really, that takes on a life of its own and camouflages perfectly with the status quo. The panoptic view accomplishes this goal of camouflage and obscurity, because it stems from a Freudian psychological impulse/instinct to watch, be watched, and everything in between. Therefore, another criterion for successful world domination is the threat of psychological intimidation, which can be as intense (or not) as the individual chooses to make it.
As far as how Foucault's panopticism theory converges with attitudes about technological expansion, I could not help but instantly think that all of the online activities in which modern society participates -- Facebook, Twitter, Ratemyprofessor.com -- all let members of society know that we are being watched. Particularly, I made the connection between panopticism and technology when Foucault states "Power has its principle not so much in a person as a certain concerted distribution of bodies, surfaces, lights, gazes; in an arrangement whose internal mechanisms produce the relation in which individuals are caught up" (202). The online internet atmosphere provides the various "surfaces," "lights," "gazes," etc., and bodies collectively engaging in this atmosphere are presently very "caught up" in all of these different arenas for communicating. Therefore, the online atmosphere, and all the technologies that construct it, provide a great deal of power to someone -- maybe whoever chooses to look.
Also, on page 204, when Foucault explains that the Panopticon allows for constant supervision, ASSESSMENT, order, productivity, etc., I put in my notes: "I can't help but connect this to standardized testing!" I realize it is overwrought to assert that standardized testing directly equals the Panopticon, but much of the economic/efficiency arguments about standardized testing and placement discussed in Dr. Condon's writing assessment course last year reflect Foucault's description of the Panopticon's power to judge quality and quantity of production.
With no real smooth segue, having read Foucault first, I noticed all kinds of parallel arguments in Ohmann's piece. Ohmann's observation that definitions of literacy have become a way to measure behaviors connected to class/status, and that literacy became defined technological advances used to further production make me ask this question: does literacy, or defintions of literacy connected to economics equal the Panopticon? I especially wonder, because Ohmann illustrates in his examples on page 680 of what technologies could have become, if real agency existed, that agency and definition of a technology by actual users is often missing or in conflict with an institution's intended purpose. So, if institutions dictate how new technologies are used and assess levels of literacy with these technologies, then how are technology and literacy writ large NOT the Panopticon?
Due to these questions, I think that Ohmann's piece is still very relevant, especially because of the discussions I hear off and on about whether or not someone is using a technology correctly. Like, is there a wrong way to use Twitter, Facebook, etc.? I don't really think so, but others might. So, then, who decides? Do we or do institutions decide?
I take Foucault's argument to be that the most effective tool for efficiency, control, production, and social interaction (a lot of political and economic metaphors, which I also noticed in Ohmann), is a mechanism, of any sort, really, that takes on a life of its own and camouflages perfectly with the status quo. The panoptic view accomplishes this goal of camouflage and obscurity, because it stems from a Freudian psychological impulse/instinct to watch, be watched, and everything in between. Therefore, another criterion for successful world domination is the threat of psychological intimidation, which can be as intense (or not) as the individual chooses to make it.
As far as how Foucault's panopticism theory converges with attitudes about technological expansion, I could not help but instantly think that all of the online activities in which modern society participates -- Facebook, Twitter, Ratemyprofessor.com -- all let members of society know that we are being watched. Particularly, I made the connection between panopticism and technology when Foucault states "Power has its principle not so much in a person as a certain concerted distribution of bodies, surfaces, lights, gazes; in an arrangement whose internal mechanisms produce the relation in which individuals are caught up" (202). The online internet atmosphere provides the various "surfaces," "lights," "gazes," etc., and bodies collectively engaging in this atmosphere are presently very "caught up" in all of these different arenas for communicating. Therefore, the online atmosphere, and all the technologies that construct it, provide a great deal of power to someone -- maybe whoever chooses to look.
Also, on page 204, when Foucault explains that the Panopticon allows for constant supervision, ASSESSMENT, order, productivity, etc., I put in my notes: "I can't help but connect this to standardized testing!" I realize it is overwrought to assert that standardized testing directly equals the Panopticon, but much of the economic/efficiency arguments about standardized testing and placement discussed in Dr. Condon's writing assessment course last year reflect Foucault's description of the Panopticon's power to judge quality and quantity of production.
With no real smooth segue, having read Foucault first, I noticed all kinds of parallel arguments in Ohmann's piece. Ohmann's observation that definitions of literacy have become a way to measure behaviors connected to class/status, and that literacy became defined technological advances used to further production make me ask this question: does literacy, or defintions of literacy connected to economics equal the Panopticon? I especially wonder, because Ohmann illustrates in his examples on page 680 of what technologies could have become, if real agency existed, that agency and definition of a technology by actual users is often missing or in conflict with an institution's intended purpose. So, if institutions dictate how new technologies are used and assess levels of literacy with these technologies, then how are technology and literacy writ large NOT the Panopticon?
Due to these questions, I think that Ohmann's piece is still very relevant, especially because of the discussions I hear off and on about whether or not someone is using a technology correctly. Like, is there a wrong way to use Twitter, Facebook, etc.? I don't really think so, but others might. So, then, who decides? Do we or do institutions decide?
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Response to Wysocki and Lauer
One interesting thread between the two readings was the way in which naming and labeling of multimodal, new media, digital, etc. text corresponds to the way that proponents think the texts should be used or perceived. In the emboldened part right under "Opening 3" on page 15, Wysocki claims that "we should call 'new media texts' those that have been made by composers who are aware of the range of materialities of texts and who then highlight the materiality." As I understand this in the context of the rest of the chapter, the composers make a "new media text" suited for a particular purpose that those reading the texts can visually see and interpret. Based on Lauer's arguments and interviews in her piece, materiality correlates to the particular name or label that under which the "new media text" is put.
This idea became evident once I began to listen to the "Audience-Oriented" section of Part 2, and particularly "Writing Grants." Prior to listening to that particular segment, I felt like I was floating along on this calm wave or even vacuum of thinking about names of texts in ways that possibly correspond to personal preference. However, DeWitt woke me up, so to speak, and reminded me that making, naming, and using text becomes an exercise in argument, persuasion, and securing monetary compensation. Also, the names change, depending upon the people with whom we speak, such as parents, colleagues, students, administrators. I was even struck by Palmeri's honesty in saying that as long as he could call the "thing" a ham sandwich and still do what he chose, he'd be fine with it. The "ham sandwich" concept also loops back to Wysocki's observation that "[b]eing alert to how agency and materiality entwine can also help us see how the definition we use -- and hence how we understand our technologies -- might obscure the agency we do have" (18), but in reverse. The interviews discussing audience indicate the materiality highlighted and the names/definitions constructed are what provide the agency in the first place. Yes, the different names for different audiences temporarily limits the perception being brought up for discussion, but the limitation happens wittingly and with the intention of creating various limited snippets, which add up to a complex picture.
This idea became evident once I began to listen to the "Audience-Oriented" section of Part 2, and particularly "Writing Grants." Prior to listening to that particular segment, I felt like I was floating along on this calm wave or even vacuum of thinking about names of texts in ways that possibly correspond to personal preference. However, DeWitt woke me up, so to speak, and reminded me that making, naming, and using text becomes an exercise in argument, persuasion, and securing monetary compensation. Also, the names change, depending upon the people with whom we speak, such as parents, colleagues, students, administrators. I was even struck by Palmeri's honesty in saying that as long as he could call the "thing" a ham sandwich and still do what he chose, he'd be fine with it. The "ham sandwich" concept also loops back to Wysocki's observation that "[b]eing alert to how agency and materiality entwine can also help us see how the definition we use -- and hence how we understand our technologies -- might obscure the agency we do have" (18), but in reverse. The interviews discussing audience indicate the materiality highlighted and the names/definitions constructed are what provide the agency in the first place. Yes, the different names for different audiences temporarily limits the perception being brought up for discussion, but the limitation happens wittingly and with the intention of creating various limited snippets, which add up to a complex picture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)