Blog #9: First Post

Trying to get this to fit the word limit was impossible. Sorry for the length, but I hope you have enough material to get the ball rolling.

Selfe poses an important problem – the lack of involvement of sound in the classroom. I think the crux of her article, and the continuation of the class’s conversation on Nov. 3^rd can be found in the following quote:

“When teachers of composition limit the bandwidth of composing modalities in our classrooms and assignments, when we privilege print as the only acceptable way to make or exchange meaning, we not only ignore the history of rhetoric and its intellectual inheritance, but we also limit, unnecessarily, our scholarly understanding of semiotic systems (Kress, “English”) and the effectiveness of our instruction for many students.”(The Movement of Air, the Breath of Meaning: Aurality and Multimodal Composing Cynthia L. Selfe 618)

Many curricula are planned around the importance of writing, especially in ELA. What we need to do as teachers is incorporate as many media as possible to capture the complete essence of our language. Students across the disciplines encounter a variety of media in their school day: slides in science, Video in English, Read aloud in social studies, and dialogue in any class. I think that no matter the content, the “trust” factor must come into play, and the dialogue will follow.

“Students, in sum, need opportunities to realize that different compositional modalities carry with them different possibilities for representing multiple and shifting patterns of identity, additional potential for expression and resistance, expanded ways of engaging with a changing world.” ( Selfe 645)

Once media other than lecture and print in introduced, and the “aurality” (Selfe) of the classroom is connected to the “aurality” of the outside world, it will be easier for students to have that personalized learning experience we are hoping to achieve. The printed word is not the be all and end all of “intellectuals”. Do you think that other forms of media are held in as high esteem as “high” literature such as Shakespeare?

Another aspect of this multimedia world we are being propelled into (along with or behind our students) is the incredibly broad spectrum of references that we can encounter. These references can be obvious or subtle, but once they are recognized, they become part of the students “intertextual” world. Students do this all the time by quoting from their favorite songs or TV shows in their own conversations; they bring in one reference to strengthen their own words. This dip into a reference pool shows that students can utilize various references in appropriate contexts.

“New communication technologies, it is frequently argued, have the potential to give us access to more and different kinds of texts. They thus by their nature, we could argue, generate a kind of intertextuality…”the necessary relation of any utterance to other utterances”…” (Dropping Bread Crumbs in the Intertextual Forest Critical Literacy in a Post Modern Age or: Should We Have Brought a Compass Diana George & Diane Shoos 118)

How can we make sure we : 1. Help students realize that they have this ability? 2. Develop techniques to guide the students into their classroom “intertextuality”? I think that students do this more than they realize already, and we can help make the classroom more personable by bringing some more Simpsons and 30 Rock references (both shows already utilize “intertextuality”) into our Faulkner.

In chapter 12 of WACNM the WAC theory is brought back to its roots, its first principles. This is done by breaking down the term “writing” – “across” – the “curriculum”. First, “writing” is explored. The first concept that is brought up is the yin/yang of many teachers’ oppositional directives “Drive to Conformity and Drive to originality” (301). Drive to conformity is basically learning to use Standard English, Drive to originality is more individual driven, a chance for the student to invent his own style, and learn to write/write to learn this way. This is very similar to the issues the class brought up at our last meeting. Even this chapter concludes that “writing” and writing to learn/learning to write can have different meanings in different classrooms. Does anyone think that a formalized program that utilized both methods as part of the curriculum would be beneficial to students?

This chapter also re-raises the question of technologies place/role in “writing”. There is an understanding that technology must be included in writing, and that it can broaden the definition in a good way, to enable students to “write” in ways other than traditional pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard). (308) However, they also acknowledge that assessing this kind of writing can be difficult, and the implementation of this tech/writing assignment is best left to the teachers. By the end of this chapter, there is a conclusion that in the future writing in schools will not be so different that writing in the work force; and due to the blurry nature of the lines, the “curriculum will freer to grow symbiotically with changes in work.”(319) I almost feel like I am a chapter behind in reading this…haven’t we been discussing this already. I suppose it just validates our opinions!

Last but not least, a brief touch on chapter 9 from ND. This chapter seems to be something that could be applied to a character study of a text. Which characters get along, which characters are in conflict and which characters contrast each other? It could also be useful to use these ideas when helping students plan a paper. I think that by linking jargon from the tech world that so many kids are (quickly) gaining knowledge in everyday to our boring classrooms, we can help them make connections that will enable them to carry the tools for planning a proper persuasive essay or resume in their future. Do you think that this would be something you could establish in your classroom? Or do you think it would just be another waste of time teaching tool that you use to look good for your administration?

~Heller

To respond, click on the "comments" link below.