It seems like much of the tension surrounding multimodal composition is focused on new media technology. Branscum and Toscano address many of those concerns in chapter seven, “Experimenting with multimodality.” The authors emphasize a need to “focus on rhetorical effectiveness” when experimenting with multimodal composition (p. 85). This is a good point, too, because it reiterates the fact that we are, first, teaching composition (which should comfort those who are queasy about new technology), and that new writing technologies should be used to fulfill our purpose.
Many of the suggestions in the chapter may seem like common sense, but I’m guessing when something goes wrong in the classroom, common sense might fly out the window. The point is...this is a great reference chapter to have on hand.
The authors also explain how a class might go about learning a new software program or piece of equipment:
-Keep a technology log to jot down notes and comments when learning to use new software or equipment. These can be printed for everyone else in the classroom or posted on Vista for reference. If one person is testing something new, he or she can share what is learned to others who might benefit from that technology. Not only does this support collaborative learning, it also emphasizes the knowledge gained from personal experience and teaching others.
-Take advantage of other campus resources: IT departments and the library multimedia lab. It might be helpful to have a specialist come to your class to discuss new technologies, or perhaps take a field trip to the library and check it out in person.
Below are some web resources for new media technology and relevant issues that I find helpful:
http://dmp.osu.edu/DMAC/resources.html
-This site has various PDF documents that are quite handy, such as a multimodality bibliography and an Audacity handbook.
http://www.hu.mtu.edu/~awysocki/resources01.html
-Don’t miss the “toolbar” at the top left corner of the page.
http://www.lynda.com/
-Video tutorials, etc. I think there is a trial you can get for free, but after that you might have to dig into that student loan. I admit it, this is kind of a tease, but it’s probably worth it if you’re going to buy a bunch of software handbooks anyway…
http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~schneidw/digital/
-This is a web page for one of my OU digital imaging professors; it’s dense, but has really good information and detailed explanations. If you want to learn how to use Photoshop, this is your man.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Assessment rubrics
I chose to read chapter 8 on Responding and Assessing multimodal projects (and not just because Brian was one of the authors). One of the issues that gave me pause (other than the multimodality of it all; I'm still doing my best to reconcile myself to that concept) was the discussion early on of rubrics constructed by the class.
On page 101 the text says "Creating a collaboratively constructed rubric--or using other similar instructive-assessment strategies--helps to make classroom expectations, including the newer elements of multimodal texts, more apparent for both teachers and students."
This is something I've thought about quite a lot in putting together my assignment sheet and in general about getting ready to assess a class. I'm by no means an expert on most of these multimodal concepts, so it's going to be tough for me to tell students exactly how I'm going to grade them on, for example, a film project. How systematic do I make the grading procedure? I know students have very definite ideas of fairness and want to know exactly how they're being assessed. But having the transparency of a defined rubric in which they'll see exactly how many points they get on each individual category seems a little problematic. It makes it much easier for students to quibble over every single point, for one thing. It also takes away some of our wiggle room; in general, we know what an A or a B or a C looks like, right? Or do we?
On page 101 the text says "Creating a collaboratively constructed rubric--or using other similar instructive-assessment strategies--helps to make classroom expectations, including the newer elements of multimodal texts, more apparent for both teachers and students."
This is something I've thought about quite a lot in putting together my assignment sheet and in general about getting ready to assess a class. I'm by no means an expert on most of these multimodal concepts, so it's going to be tough for me to tell students exactly how I'm going to grade them on, for example, a film project. How systematic do I make the grading procedure? I know students have very definite ideas of fairness and want to know exactly how they're being assessed. But having the transparency of a defined rubric in which they'll see exactly how many points they get on each individual category seems a little problematic. It makes it much easier for students to quibble over every single point, for one thing. It also takes away some of our wiggle room; in general, we know what an A or a B or a C looks like, right? Or do we?
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Back in the day...
Wolman, David. “When Tech Attacks!” Wired (Sept. 2008): p. 31-34.
When in doubt, blame the latest technology. Socrates thought the advent of writing would wreak havoc on the powers of the mind. Christian theologians denounced the printing press as the work of the devil. The invention of the telephone was supposed to make letter-writing extinct, and the arrival of the train – and later the car and plane – was going to be the death of the community.
Now comes a technological bogeyman for the 21st century, this one responsible for a supposed sharp uptick in American shallowness and credulity: the Internet and its digital spawn. Witness the wave of books and essays implicating the wired world in a sudden rise in uncritical thinking and attention deficits.
…Yes, it must be acknowledged that the Web provides remarkably easy access to such bogus ideas. On top of that, there’s the human tendency to seek out information that supports preexisting assumptions, a behavior psychologists have dubbed homophily. The Web magnifies this echo-chamber effect.
…The Web is not an obstacle in this project [remedying stupidity]. It’s an unparalleled tool for generating, finding, and sharing sound information. What’s moronic is to assume that it hurts us more than it helps.
Read the entire article here: http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/16-09/st_essay
I learned photography with a film camera, and I spent more time in my darkroom than I probably should have (adolescent development +harsh chemicals=high probability of cancer, etc…). When I discovered Photoshop and digital cameras, I was amused but definitely not converting. Silver halide crystals were the real McCoy; pixels were a sad imposter. Now, this stubbornness is slightly justified, in that when these new technologies came out, they were pretty poor in comparison to my darkroom and keen eye for an exposure that needed tweaking or a face that needed burning.
Needless to say, I no longer own a film camera, and I enjoy using Photoshop and not having contact with toxic chemicals. But I’m sure the smell of fixer would bring me back to the good old days. I appreciate the affordances in digital photography knowing the extra energy, money, and time I would be wasting in a darkroom ruining my film because the temperature was two degrees off.
Anyway, I thought digital photography was a false art and a trend that would soon die; it wasn’t the real thing, so what good could it be? In fact, I was adamantly against color photography until I moved out of the darkroom. I was a stubborn kid, trying to make excuses for things I didn’t have access to (a decent digital camera or a color darkroom), and for things I didn’t know.
Flash forward a few years to my senior year in college, the same year Mac introduced OS X. That was like the jump from my parents’ Kaypro 10 to a Gateway with Windows 3.1: it had a mouse attached to it. The screen wasn’t green and black. It had a CD player.
Anyway, OS X came with iMovie and Garageband, so instead of doing my documentary photography class project in the traditional digital slide with caption format, I put the images into iMovie and included audio from interviews with the subjects of the documentary. There was a huge difference: not only was it fun to watch, but the story was richer and had more depth due to the impact of human voice combined with the images. Yes it took longer for me to put together, and I had to learn a variety of new programs to execute my project, but I did learn important skills in what I now know as rhetorical choices. As Hess argues, “one of the most important reasons to design assignments for multimodal composition is to expand students’ thinking about composing and how this complex set of processes works….Effective composing assignments, we believe, involve students in reflection about not only the processes, but the products of composing” (p. 29). In addition, “we encourage both teachers and students to undertake such work with the goal of thinking about what humans can accomplish when they use different modalities – and all available rhetorical means – to communicate as effectively as possible” (p. 30).
I like the assignments discussed in _Multimodal Composition_ not because I “like” multimodality and have a beef with traditional academic writing (I’ll probably assign both types of writing). I think the point to understand about any writing (multi- or monomodal) is that the form is chosen by the writer to best convey the content, argument, etc. through the effective use of the rhetorical means available. The writer needs to understand the importance of the context, audience, content, etc. and then have the skills to combine all the elements necessary to invent and create. I don’t think the authors we have been reading are arguing for our students to learn multimodal composition just because it’s trendy or because they want to kill print text. There are choices that need to be made during the writing process, and the mode used shouldn’t be taken lightly; it serves a purpose.
Note: This post isn't necessarily a defense of the so-called 'millennial' way of existence. I know that students (and adults) need to be able to take responsibility for their learning and actions, and therefore, a certain level of respect for everyone in the classroom needs to occur. What I'm not sure I agree with, though, is the argument that new technology is the reason for a lack of personal responsibility and classroom decorum. These things need to be addressed in the ground rules as well as throughout the semester in how the teacher respects the students and vice versa.
When in doubt, blame the latest technology. Socrates thought the advent of writing would wreak havoc on the powers of the mind. Christian theologians denounced the printing press as the work of the devil. The invention of the telephone was supposed to make letter-writing extinct, and the arrival of the train – and later the car and plane – was going to be the death of the community.
Now comes a technological bogeyman for the 21st century, this one responsible for a supposed sharp uptick in American shallowness and credulity: the Internet and its digital spawn. Witness the wave of books and essays implicating the wired world in a sudden rise in uncritical thinking and attention deficits.
…Yes, it must be acknowledged that the Web provides remarkably easy access to such bogus ideas. On top of that, there’s the human tendency to seek out information that supports preexisting assumptions, a behavior psychologists have dubbed homophily. The Web magnifies this echo-chamber effect.
…The Web is not an obstacle in this project [remedying stupidity]. It’s an unparalleled tool for generating, finding, and sharing sound information. What’s moronic is to assume that it hurts us more than it helps.
Read the entire article here: http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/16-09/st_essay
I learned photography with a film camera, and I spent more time in my darkroom than I probably should have (adolescent development +harsh chemicals=high probability of cancer, etc…). When I discovered Photoshop and digital cameras, I was amused but definitely not converting. Silver halide crystals were the real McCoy; pixels were a sad imposter. Now, this stubbornness is slightly justified, in that when these new technologies came out, they were pretty poor in comparison to my darkroom and keen eye for an exposure that needed tweaking or a face that needed burning.
Needless to say, I no longer own a film camera, and I enjoy using Photoshop and not having contact with toxic chemicals. But I’m sure the smell of fixer would bring me back to the good old days. I appreciate the affordances in digital photography knowing the extra energy, money, and time I would be wasting in a darkroom ruining my film because the temperature was two degrees off.
Anyway, I thought digital photography was a false art and a trend that would soon die; it wasn’t the real thing, so what good could it be? In fact, I was adamantly against color photography until I moved out of the darkroom. I was a stubborn kid, trying to make excuses for things I didn’t have access to (a decent digital camera or a color darkroom), and for things I didn’t know.
Flash forward a few years to my senior year in college, the same year Mac introduced OS X. That was like the jump from my parents’ Kaypro 10 to a Gateway with Windows 3.1: it had a mouse attached to it. The screen wasn’t green and black. It had a CD player.
Anyway, OS X came with iMovie and Garageband, so instead of doing my documentary photography class project in the traditional digital slide with caption format, I put the images into iMovie and included audio from interviews with the subjects of the documentary. There was a huge difference: not only was it fun to watch, but the story was richer and had more depth due to the impact of human voice combined with the images. Yes it took longer for me to put together, and I had to learn a variety of new programs to execute my project, but I did learn important skills in what I now know as rhetorical choices. As Hess argues, “one of the most important reasons to design assignments for multimodal composition is to expand students’ thinking about composing and how this complex set of processes works….Effective composing assignments, we believe, involve students in reflection about not only the processes, but the products of composing” (p. 29). In addition, “we encourage both teachers and students to undertake such work with the goal of thinking about what humans can accomplish when they use different modalities – and all available rhetorical means – to communicate as effectively as possible” (p. 30).
I like the assignments discussed in _Multimodal Composition_ not because I “like” multimodality and have a beef with traditional academic writing (I’ll probably assign both types of writing). I think the point to understand about any writing (multi- or monomodal) is that the form is chosen by the writer to best convey the content, argument, etc. through the effective use of the rhetorical means available. The writer needs to understand the importance of the context, audience, content, etc. and then have the skills to combine all the elements necessary to invent and create. I don’t think the authors we have been reading are arguing for our students to learn multimodal composition just because it’s trendy or because they want to kill print text. There are choices that need to be made during the writing process, and the mode used shouldn’t be taken lightly; it serves a purpose.
Note: This post isn't necessarily a defense of the so-called 'millennial' way of existence. I know that students (and adults) need to be able to take responsibility for their learning and actions, and therefore, a certain level of respect for everyone in the classroom needs to occur. What I'm not sure I agree with, though, is the argument that new technology is the reason for a lack of personal responsibility and classroom decorum. These things need to be addressed in the ground rules as well as throughout the semester in how the teacher respects the students and vice versa.
Multimodal Assignments and Connecting with Audience...
In reading Chapter 3, "Composing Multimodal Assignments," I began thinking about how these types of assignments might help us to accomplish the goals of the course. This is something that I must admit, I was feeling at a bit of a disconnect about. I was wondering how working in these different technological formats would help students to learn to utilize "all available rhetorical means."
Hess argues: "Because video and audio are more popularly based forms of communication, students have a great deal of experience in receiving and interpreting such communicative forms--much more than they have, indeed, in reading and interpreting academic genres. Students know how video and audio messages are delivered and distributed differently for different purposes and different audiences" (31). This rings so true for me. I think that coming right out of high school, a person is much more likely to be able to connect the mediums of audio and video with the concept of an audience. This is an audience that, for them, is much more concrete, primarily because they are so used to being that audience. The idea of an audience that lurks behind a piece of writing like "The Symbolism in Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter." is probably much more difficult for students to see than the audience that eagerly awaits the next High School Musical movie. When I was 18, I certainly would've been able to more easily understand the latter than the former.
This applies, I think, also to the idea of marketing and other related concepts. I'm currently toying with the idea of a course theme something like "The World is a Text" or something dealing with the many different avenues of communication both within the academy and without, because I do feel that if they can see how language functions as communication outside the academy, in an environment with which they are more familiar, that it will be easier to help them relate that to the communication that goes on inside the academy. I see it as a sort of "bridge-building" exercise. (There's the preview of my forthcoming (almost as big as High School Musical) movie...premiering October 13th in SFH room 106.) Although I have disagreed elsewhere on the board that this generation should be treated as a different species from the ones to which we belong and maybe we shouldn't tailor their experiences in school entirely to their experiences outside of school, I guess this is my answer to my own question. I think that if we can start with what they know and inherently understand (yet not stop there) before we even set eyes on them, we can begin to build a bridge between their world and ours.
From this, I think that the multimodal assignments that Hess discusses can be quite useful in introducing and reinforcing the importance of considering your audience in writing, no matter which means you choose to use to write. I think that in a way, that this brings the idea of audience home, much more than only writing alphabetic essays and nothing else. Even in this course, as I work and rework (almost obsessively) my movie, the fact that I'm approaching it with the understanding that I will be showing it to students on the first day of class in an effort to show them what I want them to begin thinking about and give them glimpses into my theory of writing and communication (in all spheres where it occurs) is continually reinforcing audience for me, in a very intense way, and in a way that feels "new" to me. Considering I've been writing for a long time and audience is nothing new to me, I see this as a really powerful tool. If it can make me rethink audience, when audience is something I'm almost instinctively aware of at this point, I think that it will also help beginners to bring this extremely important component of writing into focus. I wonder if there is any more effective way to reinforce the idea of audience....than to have them making videos and audio presentations. They have not been on the receiving end of academic writing, (and if they have, it has been very limited,) but on the other hand, they have been on the receiving end of video, movies etc. for their entire lives. It's a concept with which they are intimately acquainted. So for me, I can definitely understand now, at least on the level of audience, how useful these kinds of assignments will be.
Hess argues: "Because video and audio are more popularly based forms of communication, students have a great deal of experience in receiving and interpreting such communicative forms--much more than they have, indeed, in reading and interpreting academic genres. Students know how video and audio messages are delivered and distributed differently for different purposes and different audiences" (31). This rings so true for me. I think that coming right out of high school, a person is much more likely to be able to connect the mediums of audio and video with the concept of an audience. This is an audience that, for them, is much more concrete, primarily because they are so used to being that audience. The idea of an audience that lurks behind a piece of writing like "The Symbolism in Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter." is probably much more difficult for students to see than the audience that eagerly awaits the next High School Musical movie. When I was 18, I certainly would've been able to more easily understand the latter than the former.
This applies, I think, also to the idea of marketing and other related concepts. I'm currently toying with the idea of a course theme something like "The World is a Text" or something dealing with the many different avenues of communication both within the academy and without, because I do feel that if they can see how language functions as communication outside the academy, in an environment with which they are more familiar, that it will be easier to help them relate that to the communication that goes on inside the academy. I see it as a sort of "bridge-building" exercise. (There's the preview of my forthcoming (almost as big as High School Musical) movie...premiering October 13th in SFH room 106.) Although I have disagreed elsewhere on the board that this generation should be treated as a different species from the ones to which we belong and maybe we shouldn't tailor their experiences in school entirely to their experiences outside of school, I guess this is my answer to my own question. I think that if we can start with what they know and inherently understand (yet not stop there) before we even set eyes on them, we can begin to build a bridge between their world and ours.
From this, I think that the multimodal assignments that Hess discusses can be quite useful in introducing and reinforcing the importance of considering your audience in writing, no matter which means you choose to use to write. I think that in a way, that this brings the idea of audience home, much more than only writing alphabetic essays and nothing else. Even in this course, as I work and rework (almost obsessively) my movie, the fact that I'm approaching it with the understanding that I will be showing it to students on the first day of class in an effort to show them what I want them to begin thinking about and give them glimpses into my theory of writing and communication (in all spheres where it occurs) is continually reinforcing audience for me, in a very intense way, and in a way that feels "new" to me. Considering I've been writing for a long time and audience is nothing new to me, I see this as a really powerful tool. If it can make me rethink audience, when audience is something I'm almost instinctively aware of at this point, I think that it will also help beginners to bring this extremely important component of writing into focus. I wonder if there is any more effective way to reinforce the idea of audience....than to have them making videos and audio presentations. They have not been on the receiving end of academic writing, (and if they have, it has been very limited,) but on the other hand, they have been on the receiving end of video, movies etc. for their entire lives. It's a concept with which they are intimately acquainted. So for me, I can definitely understand now, at least on the level of audience, how useful these kinds of assignments will be.
Friday, October 3, 2008
This may kill my grade, but...
Okay, I'm going to come right out and take a stand on this sucker: I'm pretty sure I hate multimodal composition (forgive me, Professor Takayoshi; it's nothing personal).
I have tried my best to be open-minded about the whole proposition. I'm a relatively computer-literate person. Age-wise, I'm a millenial. I have a cell phone and know how to text message; I have an iPod which I love more than I imagine I'll love my children someday; I have two computers (a laptop and a desktop) and use email, the Face Book (did anybody else find that wording/capitalization/spacing in Monday's reading hilarious?), and other internet things regularly. It seems most of us do.
But as far as video/audio-based assignments in my English classes, I just can't convince myself to embrace the idea. Sure, I'll do the multimodal assignments for this class. I'll play my video on the first day of class. I'll do my best to think constructively about the affordances multimodality provides. If I'm perfectly honest, though, unless my mentality changes I'll never voluntarily put multimodal assignments into a class I teach. It's not required in the handbook's course goals (I looked) and, at least with my mentality, I don't think it'll be an effective teaching tool. I'm perfectly willing to admit that's due to a characteristic of my own and not to a larger fault of the concept. But it's how I feel.
My main issue with the idea goes back to an experience I had in seventh grade English class (bear with me). I was required to make a poster about a book, and I picked a challenging sci-fi novel called Creatures of Light and Darkness. When I made my poster, I focused on the content of its written portions (definitions of difficult terms, plot summary, main ideas expressed, and so forth) and didn't do particularly good work on the visuals as I'm not much of an artist. I was given a C- on the project, losing no points on the written materials but failing miserably in the "artistic" segments. I was pissed off. An English class, I reasoned, should be about English and not about my aptitude (or lack thereof) in art. Disciplines do of course cross sometimes, but my lack of ability in one shouldn't preclude my ability to succeed in another.
To my way of thinking, this is the concern in the multimodal concept. Audiovisual materials can present ideas just as alphabetical papers can, but I don't want to deal with them in an English class. It's not a question of time or effectiveness, it's a simple matter of not finding it relevant and constructive to what I want to do in a class. I would much rather use written papers and class discussion to develop ideas. Maybe I'm being close-minded. I'll continue to try to reconcile myself to the idea. But as it stands, I don't like the stuff.
I have tried my best to be open-minded about the whole proposition. I'm a relatively computer-literate person. Age-wise, I'm a millenial. I have a cell phone and know how to text message; I have an iPod which I love more than I imagine I'll love my children someday; I have two computers (a laptop and a desktop) and use email, the Face Book (did anybody else find that wording/capitalization/spacing in Monday's reading hilarious?), and other internet things regularly. It seems most of us do.
But as far as video/audio-based assignments in my English classes, I just can't convince myself to embrace the idea. Sure, I'll do the multimodal assignments for this class. I'll play my video on the first day of class. I'll do my best to think constructively about the affordances multimodality provides. If I'm perfectly honest, though, unless my mentality changes I'll never voluntarily put multimodal assignments into a class I teach. It's not required in the handbook's course goals (I looked) and, at least with my mentality, I don't think it'll be an effective teaching tool. I'm perfectly willing to admit that's due to a characteristic of my own and not to a larger fault of the concept. But it's how I feel.
My main issue with the idea goes back to an experience I had in seventh grade English class (bear with me). I was required to make a poster about a book, and I picked a challenging sci-fi novel called Creatures of Light and Darkness. When I made my poster, I focused on the content of its written portions (definitions of difficult terms, plot summary, main ideas expressed, and so forth) and didn't do particularly good work on the visuals as I'm not much of an artist. I was given a C- on the project, losing no points on the written materials but failing miserably in the "artistic" segments. I was pissed off. An English class, I reasoned, should be about English and not about my aptitude (or lack thereof) in art. Disciplines do of course cross sometimes, but my lack of ability in one shouldn't preclude my ability to succeed in another.
To my way of thinking, this is the concern in the multimodal concept. Audiovisual materials can present ideas just as alphabetical papers can, but I don't want to deal with them in an English class. It's not a question of time or effectiveness, it's a simple matter of not finding it relevant and constructive to what I want to do in a class. I would much rather use written papers and class discussion to develop ideas. Maybe I'm being close-minded. I'll continue to try to reconcile myself to the idea. But as it stands, I don't like the stuff.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
In defense of digital writing
First of all, I’m pretty sure most people at this age (early adulthood…freshmen) have been called ‘lazy’ and ‘self-absorbed’ at least once, and therefore it’s not just the so-called ‘millennials’ that gain those labels. Instead of focusing on the lesson, some of my classmates in elementary, junior, and senior high school would read a magazine, write notes to friends, and chat with each other until the teacher noticed and let them have it. These things are essentially underlife activities, and I think that while they occur in each generation, the form they take may change. Notes to friends are now text messages, the magazine is a myspace or facebook page, and the chatting is still, well, chatting (but it could be a text or an IM).
Ground rules are therefore relevant here: make it a point that computers should be closed or open at appropriate times. If a student is seriously disruptive, discuss the issue with him or her after class.
Technology: let’s face it, it changes. The point is not to simply teach the technology, but to teach the students how to make significant and critical rhetorical choices that express ideas and arguments in meaningful ways, often utilizing various technologies to do so. As the WIDE Research Center Collective puts it:
“…the ability to compose documents with multiple media, to publish this writing quickly, to distribute it to mass audiences, and to allow audiences to interact with this writing (and with writers) challenges many of the traditional principles and practices of composition, which are based (implicitly) on a print view of writing. The changing nature and contexts of composing impacts meaning making at every turn” (“Changed context for writing”).
Rather than simply producing a textual artifact, digital writing allows our students to understand a range of writing activities. Publication and distribution (“Changed context for writing”) are not necessarily readily available to students in a traditional print text classroom. Access to a digital network (Internet) allows them to publish their work and perhaps receive feedback sooner than if they were to try to publish their work in a scholarly journal. It allows them to be public authors with an audience that is outside the classroom.
There are things that simply cannot be accomplished with a print text. Or if they can, the information may not be portrayed in the best possible way through print. Video, audio, print, etc. in various combinations can accomplish communication on many different levels. Since we have the ability to use these technologies and modes, and since our students will probably come in contact with them in their futures, we need to help prepare them to make effective rhetorical choices in multiple ways.
Check out these videos made by the Digital Ethnography program at Kansas State University: http://mediatedcultures.net/mediatedculture.htm
One of the videos looks at these millennials while others discuss technology and writing.
Ground rules are therefore relevant here: make it a point that computers should be closed or open at appropriate times. If a student is seriously disruptive, discuss the issue with him or her after class.
Technology: let’s face it, it changes. The point is not to simply teach the technology, but to teach the students how to make significant and critical rhetorical choices that express ideas and arguments in meaningful ways, often utilizing various technologies to do so. As the WIDE Research Center Collective puts it:
“…the ability to compose documents with multiple media, to publish this writing quickly, to distribute it to mass audiences, and to allow audiences to interact with this writing (and with writers) challenges many of the traditional principles and practices of composition, which are based (implicitly) on a print view of writing. The changing nature and contexts of composing impacts meaning making at every turn” (“Changed context for writing”).
Rather than simply producing a textual artifact, digital writing allows our students to understand a range of writing activities. Publication and distribution (“Changed context for writing”) are not necessarily readily available to students in a traditional print text classroom. Access to a digital network (Internet) allows them to publish their work and perhaps receive feedback sooner than if they were to try to publish their work in a scholarly journal. It allows them to be public authors with an audience that is outside the classroom.
There are things that simply cannot be accomplished with a print text. Or if they can, the information may not be portrayed in the best possible way through print. Video, audio, print, etc. in various combinations can accomplish communication on many different levels. Since we have the ability to use these technologies and modes, and since our students will probably come in contact with them in their futures, we need to help prepare them to make effective rhetorical choices in multiple ways.
Check out these videos made by the Digital Ethnography program at Kansas State University: http://mediatedcultures.net/mediatedculture.htm
One of the videos looks at these millennials while others discuss technology and writing.
My mom and multimodality: a tenuous connection
My mom received her Master's in Library Science in 1976, a year before I was born. She worked in the Berea Library doing the things librarians do-- helping researchers, sorting books, keeping records. Her job appealed to her meticulous organizational skills, and she loved her career, although she left shortly after I was born to be a stay-at-home-mom for a few years.
When I was in elementary school, her library knowledge was invaluable, specifically when it came to the Dewey decimal system. A research paper on Ohio geological rocks? Head over to the 530's. Information on the Mormons? Check out 225.5. She seemed to be an endless source of seemingly meaningful information, and I was in awe of her education.
But things changed in the Library Science field while she was at home, away from the developments in library technology. When I was in 8th grade, I remember taking a trip to the library with my mother to do some research on the Titanic for a term paper. I sat down at the green-screen CRT and dutifully typed in s: (subject) Titanic. The computer spit out my sources, which I could print on the dot-matrix printer and take to the stacks. My mom was over at the card catalog, with their oak drawers and yellowing cards, looking up the location of whatever she was interested in at the time. Her reluctance to use technology at the library was real and unwavering. It wasn't until they hauled those card catalog drawers away that she finally took a seat at the computer, confused and defeated. She still stuggles with technology today.
Watching this sort of sad transformation of my mother's career made me vow not to get completely left behind in the technological revolution. I've stayed on top of it OK. I blog, I digg, I youtube, I get most of it. But reading the Carlson article made me realize I am definitely not a millennial, and as a teacher, I am not sure I want to encourge all of the millennial behaviors in the classroom.
I think it is sort of a travesty that students don't know how to "sit and listen" (a36). And I'm not sure I buy that it is because they are "too busy" (a37). (Although Jenn did make a good point in class today about the working nature of today's diverse student body compared to the more elite students of decades ago whose parents put them through college.)
The bottom line is that some of the behaviors described in the Carlson piece as behaviors of this new generation (i.e., multitasking during class and "paying attention without paying attention") strike me as unacceptable in both the classroom and in the "real world." I understand that students can do more than one thing at once and that someone doesn't need to look at me to understand what I am saying, but isn't classroom engagement easier if you, well, appear engaged? By providing students with a multimodal environment, how much do we exacerbate these behaviors and deem them acceptable? Is there a relationship between multimodal classrooms and discipline? Does discipline really matter in the classroom anymore so long as everyone is learning? We talked a little about it in class today, but I am interested in discussing it some more.
Although it is easy to dismiss some of the millennial's behaviors, I also want to understand them. I want to understand how today's students (although I am in the precarious position of being one again myself) think and process information, not just because I am going to teach them. I also want to understand them so I can see if I want to join them (I'm not that old), if I want to elect them (technological capability has been made an issue in the presidential campaign), and to see what I need to learn to stay on the technological learning curve, if not ahead of it.
And I want to understand them so I don't end up like my mother.
When I was in elementary school, her library knowledge was invaluable, specifically when it came to the Dewey decimal system. A research paper on Ohio geological rocks? Head over to the 530's. Information on the Mormons? Check out 225.5. She seemed to be an endless source of seemingly meaningful information, and I was in awe of her education.
But things changed in the Library Science field while she was at home, away from the developments in library technology. When I was in 8th grade, I remember taking a trip to the library with my mother to do some research on the Titanic for a term paper. I sat down at the green-screen CRT and dutifully typed in s: (subject) Titanic. The computer spit out my sources, which I could print on the dot-matrix printer and take to the stacks. My mom was over at the card catalog, with their oak drawers and yellowing cards, looking up the location of whatever she was interested in at the time. Her reluctance to use technology at the library was real and unwavering. It wasn't until they hauled those card catalog drawers away that she finally took a seat at the computer, confused and defeated. She still stuggles with technology today.
Watching this sort of sad transformation of my mother's career made me vow not to get completely left behind in the technological revolution. I've stayed on top of it OK. I blog, I digg, I youtube, I get most of it. But reading the Carlson article made me realize I am definitely not a millennial, and as a teacher, I am not sure I want to encourge all of the millennial behaviors in the classroom.
I think it is sort of a travesty that students don't know how to "sit and listen" (a36). And I'm not sure I buy that it is because they are "too busy" (a37). (Although Jenn did make a good point in class today about the working nature of today's diverse student body compared to the more elite students of decades ago whose parents put them through college.)
The bottom line is that some of the behaviors described in the Carlson piece as behaviors of this new generation (i.e., multitasking during class and "paying attention without paying attention") strike me as unacceptable in both the classroom and in the "real world." I understand that students can do more than one thing at once and that someone doesn't need to look at me to understand what I am saying, but isn't classroom engagement easier if you, well, appear engaged? By providing students with a multimodal environment, how much do we exacerbate these behaviors and deem them acceptable? Is there a relationship between multimodal classrooms and discipline? Does discipline really matter in the classroom anymore so long as everyone is learning? We talked a little about it in class today, but I am interested in discussing it some more.
Although it is easy to dismiss some of the millennial's behaviors, I also want to understand them. I want to understand how today's students (although I am in the precarious position of being one again myself) think and process information, not just because I am going to teach them. I also want to understand them so I can see if I want to join them (I'm not that old), if I want to elect them (technological capability has been made an issue in the presidential campaign), and to see what I need to learn to stay on the technological learning curve, if not ahead of it.
And I want to understand them so I don't end up like my mother.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)