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.

Blog #8: First Post

The chapter on "Communication Across the Curriculum" by Young describes what CAC entails. Communication across the Curriculum is similar to WAC but recognizes the importance of oral communication, visual communication, critical thinking, collaboration, problem-based learning, and other active leaning strategies (55). I believe this is very important to include in a classroom because you are challenging a student to use every aspect of their mind to promote learning. There is no set way to teach students so If you incorporate many different strategies you can reach more students. Many students will find it boring to write about a newspaper article, and those students can use their visual communication skills by writing about a picture in the newspaper rather than reading.

Chapter 3 of WACNM discusses how electronic communication tools are reshaping and expanding academic instruction, adding dimensions of learning not possible in the traditional way of getting students to learn. Do you think using electronics to promote learning is useful? What problems may students have with using electronics in the classroom?

I found it quite ironic that Kress' article English at the Crossroads, discusses how visual media and print has changed over the year and how it effects its audience, and the article itself was visually impairing to read because it was sideways. I am not that computer savvy and do not know how to rotate a web browser window. Maybe electronics should have been implemented more when I was in grade school. Anyhow I believe this article was very interesting because I never really analyzed or even considered how visual media effects people. According to Kress, "The visual is becoming more prominent in many domains of public communication. This is to realize that written language is being displaced from its hitherto unchallenged central position in the semiotic landscape, and that the visual is taking over many of the functions of written language" (68).

I fell like there was so much information on this section of readings that It was to much to cover in just one 450 word blog.

Do you think that WAC should be replaced by Communication across the Curriculum and Electronic Communication Across the Communication, since this the world is becoming more computer savvy and more a more college students are using distant learning for higher education?

Do you think learning the fundamentals of writing will become obsolete with the advancement of auto summary, spell check and proof reader?

--Morales

Respond to posts by clicking on the "comments" link.

Blog#7: DiscussionBoard

First Post

I found this week’s readings to be quite loaded with information about many different things. Each of the four authors had given me many different inputs and thoughts into my head. I read about many interesting things that seemed to catch my attention. What I did notice about the readings was that it all tied into writing and communication and how they go hand in hand.

I first looked at “Teaching Writing across the Curriculum” by Art Young. Although this article was extremely lengthy I was able to soak up the information I found very useful. The article was written for Professors that provided how to use writing across the curriculum in your classroom. It spoke about WAC theories and how to practice it. What I liked about this article was that Young did not gear it towards just English department teachers, but teachers of all subjects.

Young had said “One way to think about the classroom uses of writing is to consider writing as a valuable tool for learning as well as for communication” (9). This quote stood out for me because I agree that writing is a tool of communication. Teachers of all subjects need to realize that by understanding their students, assessing their students and having their students convey their thoughts to the teacher can all be taken in forms of writing. Writing is a huge form of communication because it opens doors for students to say what they want on paper instead person to person which can be more confrontational. As a student myself I tend to show my real self and language through the papers I am told to right rather then if I were to have a one on one conversation with my teacher. As a teacher I tend to see my students show more of their personalities through their writing.

Young had stated that the relationship between writing and communication is important, “these processes are interrelated and overlapping” (12). Writing and communication goes hand in hand.

This also goes into the point that the author Berkenkotteretal was trying to make. He had thought that the linguistics of the classroom was extremely important and can affect someone’s writing. Linguistics as we know is the study and science of language. So he also correlates language (communication) to writing.

In the “Non Designs Design Book” we see chapter 7 giving us tips on how to create and design ways that can convey the information we want to give to people (ex: business cards, flyers, newsletters, brochures, postcards, newspaper ads, etc…) These to me are forms of communication through writing.

I came up with the conclusion that writing and communication goes hand in hand with each other. Which ever comes first the other one always seem to follow. They both aid to help each other; can you agree with me on this statement?

--Rosemarie

Respond to posts by clicking on the "comments" link.

Example 2X Journal

Young: Such assigned papers are included on their course syllabus and mentioned on the first day of class...by slowing down the process and occasionally intervening in it, teachers can create an environment with time for learning and improving communication (49-50).

Muhlhauser: Sounds a lot like scaffolding but for writing as a way to get at content and to practice communication. A little later, Young describes the "generic" process of writing. Though this is decidedly not very process like since all processes are individual with regards to writing, I wonder if Young ever considers the classroom as a physical representation of efficiency and how it seems to demand a process like an assembly line.

Young: The goal for WAC teachers is to move from the traditional paradigm of assigning writing and then grading it to one that develops student's thinking and writing abilities (not just evaluates them) and that envisions student's writing as central to the knowledge being generated by the course (61).

Muhlhauser: I like this quote but am still resistant to process as something so recursive. After all, I think there is a tacit knowledge in final edits and publication. And if process is completely emphasized without examination of final product, isn't this a disservice? Final products are important. I haven't seen too many grants turned in as a process.