Responses

=Some random reactions to Selfe’s //Technology and Literacy of the Twenty First Century//:= ===p. 5 – I don’t remember hearing anything about Clinton’s “Technology Literacy Challenge”. Did it have much effect? However – I was in school 1995. I’m curious if teachers working in schools at this time remember this initiative. It doesn’t seem to have had the impact Selfe was expecting.=== ===p.10 / 21– Seems silly to discuss technological literacy. My 18 month old can navigate a touch screen. This may have been an issue in the mid-90s as the web is gaining a foothold. If a kid grows up on a farm should we be concerned about his agrarian literacy? But then again, she makes a very good point regarding the ways a technologically centered classroom might unduly punish those from poor households and deepen the inequity that already exists.=== ===Chapter Two – Doesn’t the answer always lie somewhere in the middle? The binary is somewhat ridiculous, but doesn’t it apply in some contexts. For example, students do read less at home because of the increase in media choices (video games, Facebook, etc.) - but is this an example of technology eroding traditional literacy skills or a change in values in terms of how we spend our free time or a change in family / parental dynamics, etc. Are these changes rooted in our reliance on technology? Selfe is right – we need to pay attention to the complex relationships between technology and literacy.=== ===Chapter Three (p.79) - Call me communist, but I get so tired of every governmental educational initiative (Goals 2000, NCLB, Race to the Top, Common Core, etc. and so on) using economic prosperity / advancement as it’s primary rationale. Why is success so narrowly defined? I don’t teach so I can create the best bunch of consumers possible. I teach to create not just taxpayers, but thinkers, self-actualizers, spreaders of kindness and compassion.===

Chapter Four – The fewer corporate tentacles squeezing our educational system, the better.
===Chapter Five (p.104) – Access is not the great equalizer. Seems like kids with computers are really good at Youtube, Facebook, and illegal downloading of files. Are these a boon to literacy (any type of literacy)? Selfe is right, a “one-dimensional definition of literacy” serves no one.=== ===Chapter 8 – Love that Selfe rejects the “technology as savior” mentality. The rootes of illiteracy go deeper than the tools used to develop it. To what extent is it a teacher’s job to reject or at least question the pervasive “technological understanding of the world” and the problematic views / choices that coincide?===

Chapter 9 – Like the practical ideas for developing a critical consciousness towards technology, but in doing so are we like Socrates railing against the written word because it damages memory?
=Response to Selfe's Sustainable Computer Environments=

===I am not sure what to make of this book. Selfe writes that his purpose is “to describe how to create a robust, sustainable system of support for technology-rich teaching and learning efforts” (p.x). Based on this statement one might expect him to discuss what kinds of hardware and software have proven the most useful / effective for language arts teachers. Or one might expect him to discuss a variety of language arts learning activities for use in technology-rich environment (i.e. how tech can enhance literacy skills in engaging ways). For me, (and I’m probably missing his point), to sustain a technology-rich environment in a school mainly depends on whether instructors find it educationally beneficial, and that perceived benefit will be the result of what students do and learn in the environment. To his credit, Selfe does state that “this is not a book about how to teach with technology. . .” (p.27), but then my question is why explore how to make an educational environment sustainable without discussing the specifics of how to make it educationally useful / viable / effective, etc.=== ===Perhaps the (or my) problem is that his intended audience is incredibly narrow - those English teachers who are considering to start or struggling to maintain a tech-rich environment. I would imagine creating a tech-rich is not a concern of most English teachers, particularly at the secondary level. Most high schools have computer labs. In my building, the presence of the computers and internet access make the labs a sought-after resource. As long as the stuff works, the space will be sustained. Certainly there is some excellent advice here for teachers who want to transform their classrooms into tech-rich environments and are not sure how to plan it, who to involve, how to find funding, etc. Or maybe this book would be useful for a teacher who is charged by an administrator to head up the creation of a new kind of lab or initiative where students are allowed to hang out before / after school and are exposed to equipment beyond the computer and printer (i.e. a tablet, media production stuff). Despite his very narrow audience, Selfe casts an extremely wide net in regards to what constitutes a “computer environment”. At times he is referring to a lab or workspace and other times he’s referring to any sort of technology related initiative. As a result, I feel like this book desperately needs a dose of specificity. To me it seems like the planning, the dynamics, the assessment involved in creating a lab space is very different than that which is involved in creating a laptop / tablet initiative. But Selfe, for the most part, maintains a vague, abstract tone so that his ideas “apply” to several different concepts of a “tech-rich environment”.=== ===Overall, as a secondary teacher, I felt Selfe’s experience of starting a tech-rich environment at the college level is fundamentally different than what a K-12 teachers will encounter, particularly when his focus is on the idea of a lab or writing center. Tech-rich environments at the college level function like the local coffee shops where students choose to take advantage of it’s resources, and usage / effectiveness of these spaces does depend on all those variables Selfe explores (creating and maintaining the space, the continual planning and assessing of it, understanding the roles of stakeholders, the desires of those stakeholders, etc.) Perhaps this is a model that high schools would be wise to adopt – but I work in a building where there is a real (probably justified) paranoia about the ways students would use tech if their time spent with it was unstructured.===

=Response to //Digital Divide//=

===Reading Digital Divide straight through put me on this crazy, discombobulating mental pendulum. My thoughts focused – not on myself and my own digital habits – but on my children and my students. The question that I (still) cannot escape is whether I’m doing them a disservice. For example, for my own children (ages 1 – 9), I (perhaps severely) limit their screen time. Video games are limited to IPod aps that strengthen vocabulary or logic skills. TV is limited to maybe a show or two a week streamed from Netflix (we don’t have cable). Web searching occurs when it is something purposeful – an answer to a question, research for a project, looking for a specific purpose. My two oldest do have blogs for posting pictures of events and writing reviews of stuff they like. We might go to a movie once every few months. Our (my wife’s and my) preference is to be outside (bike riding, hiking, swimming, shooting hoops, hide n seek,etc.) or inside reading, making something, playing games, talking, etc. Am I doing them a disservice because they are not developing their online social skills or their ability to multi-task? (Am I not raising their IQs? p. 96) Am I doing them a disservice because I’m not tapping into the educational benefits of simulation and MMRPG games? Am I doing them a disservice because I am not changing the neurons of their brains in a way that will help them function socially and intellectually in a world dominated by digital media and the internet?=== ===But as I read – the mental pendulum swung the other way – especially as I consider the ways I’ve adopted my teaching to the needs to digital natives that populate my classroom. Do I do my students a disservice when I embrace web 2.0 stuff? Am I doing students a disservice when I try to incorporate their expertise with new media forms, their ways of collaborating and social interaction? Are these things a disservice because it contributes to their ever-deepening narcissism, this need they feel for an audience and a collective gaze? Are these things a disservice because it tightens the hold consumerism has over their identities? Are they a disservice because they feed the illusion that effective multi-tasking is possible? (p. 281) Do these instructional approaches lack “a big picture sense” and do not require my students to “pursue long term goals”? Am I diluting some of the essential qualities that make us human”? (282) What if Nielsen is right – that so-called digital natives cannot effectively use their native technologies because that lack basic skills in reading, research strategies, and patience? (p.48) In that regard, am I doing my students a disservice because I am contributing to their inability to effectively dwell in moments when they are not being over-stimulated (i.e. bored). (p.49) To what extent am I “derailing. . .the work of adding to [their] storehouses of knowledge”? (p.288) Does my classroom devalue solitude and are they then less likely to enjoy its benefits – like sustained thought and reading and understanding one’s own mental depth? (p. 314 – 317)=== ===I do like that Shirky essay concludes the collection. It is measured and seems to advocate for a middle ground. The printing press made both the Bible and smut available to the masses. The internet can create a real sense of community rather than drive-through relationship building; 2.0 tools can fundamentally change our passively receptive relationship with media (from consumers to producers); there are corners of the web that are not devoted to commerce, etc. It depends on the user; it’s not always about the tool.===

=A few annotations from reading part 1 of //Computers in the Composition Classroom//:=

===p. 32 – “Technique is less important than context and purpose in the teaching of literacy: and the effects of literacy cannot be isolated from the social relations and processes within which people become illiterate. . .This age of computers will change very little in the social relations – the class relations – of which literacy is an inextricable part.”=== ===Interesting that this article was written before the surge of the internet. How have social media forms tied “social relations and processes” to literacy practices? Seems to me these new communication mediums may aggregate and flatten out literacy practices rather than deepen the separation among classes.=== ===p. 42 – The use of Foucault’s //Panopticon// metaphor to describe the “architecture of control” that can arise through the use of web boards and blogs is intriguing. Writing teachers often point to the web’s ability to create a true, authentic sense of audience for young writers. I often do and say things to help my students write for an audience beyond me and the grade I give them. But Hawisher / Selfe’s comparison between the way a teacher can easily monitor web based communication and the //Panopticon// makes me wonder whether it’s possible for students to truly shape their own compositional voice. Certainly web based communication / writing provides a more authentic sense of audience than the one teacher / one grade model, but to what extent does that feeling of being under “surveilence” by the teacher when engaging on the web strip it of being an authentic writing experience that builds a true sense of audience awareness?=== ===p. 46 - 62 (Entire article on distance / independent learning) – It has probably been done – but at what point will we (the educational community) begin to determine which subjects and content are better learned / taught in physical, face-to-face environments and which can (or should) be learned independently or via distance learning. My sneaking suspicion is that composition instruction does not lend itself to traditional classroom instruction. The writing workshop, which I feel is a highly effective structure for learning to write well, seems like an attempt to use the physical space of a classroom in a way that captures the advantages of distance and independent learning. Do we still need to utilize the space to enjoy the instructional / educational benefits of this structure?=== ===p.109 – 114 – Selfe lists various “sites” where we need to address the “complex linkages among technology, literacy, poverty, and race” through “critically informed action”. Most of her suggestions relate to the need for building critical awareness of technologies alongside the technical knowledge of using technologies. Selfe seems to take issue with the way corporate / governmental initiatives related to technological literacy focus solely on issues of effective usage rather than understanding what technology affects our notions of literacy. Her other suggestions often revolve around issues of access, particularly for the impoverished and disenfranchised. I would be curious to know how both strands of Selfe’s suggestions are affected by the increasing mobility of our technology. For example, doesn’t our culture’s (and therefore teachers’) sense of what constitutes a “composition” naturally expand as multimedia tools become widely available and easily disseminated? Are issues of access less of a barrier as cloud computing, tablets, and smartphones replace PCs and laptops?=== ===p. 132 (Baron article) – Consider Baron’s anecdote about the way composition teachers preferred eraserless pencils because students would “do better, more premeditated work if they didn’t have the option of revising.” Now, as he points out, we writing teachers try to instill in our students the value of the writing process which emphasizes the act of revision as essential. Jump to DeVoss’ and Rosati’s article on plagiarism. They write, “we must engage students in tasks appropriate to the complexity of online space” and should not “approach plagiarism as an affront to our values and authority as teachers.” I recently finished part four of the excellent documentary “Everything is a Remix” ([] ), which may be clouding my sentiments here – but how close are we to revamping our feelings about plagiarism and composition because now (metaphorically) we don’t have to rely on eraserless pencils for composition. In other words, once word processing made the act of revision easier and more effective, it changed how even instructors thought about creating quality compositions. In the same way, will internet access, increased processing speeds, digitized media – all those things which greatly enhanced our ability to appropriate content (multi-media as well as text) - change how we view plagiarism as detrimental to creating a quality composition?===

=Response to //Computers in the Classroom// part two=

p..266 – //Contrasts –// “We did not find any differences in student writing performance between the two settings.”
===Ultimately this article seems reluctant to endorse the computer classroom as the preferred environment for composition instruction – but it seems to lean heavily in this direction. For example, the bulleted list on p. 252 – 253 would lead one to assume that the computer classroom holds most of the pedagogical advantages. But this finding mentioned on p. 266 seems to call into question whether a comparison between the two environments is a worthwhile endeavor. Many of us do not have the option (or the luxury) of teaching in a computer classroom. Time in a lab is hard to come by – particularly for a significant period of time. The first 2/3rds of this article left me feeling somewhat inadequate / guilty for what my traditional classroom denies my students and the development of their compositional skills. (And if I’m completely honest – my initial reaction to the contrast they establish was to wonder why the authors’ focus is on the learning environment and not on pedagogy. Most of the differences they site – such as drafting and revising in class, increased student to student and student to teacher interactions, etc. can be incorporated whether students are writing with computers, typewriters, or paper / pencil. But in the last part – their focus does turn to pedagogy, and I appreciated their attempt to catalogue ways the pedagogy afforded by the computer classroom can be transferred to the traditional classroom (p. 260)) – but if the quality of student compositions is unaffected - do these workshop approaches – whether they happen in the computer or traditional classroom - matter? The key difference, at least in my mind, between the two environments is identified on p. 259: “the traditional classroom [is] a place where //writing was discussed. . .// the computer classroom [is] a place where writing is done-“ It’s been my experience that both need to happen: some students need to //do// more in class because of motivational issues, the need for close supervision, etc; others need those mental heuristics for producing better writing that discussing writing can instill. If the “doing” were in fact a more significant factor in developing better writers – then perhaps the most effective environment for composition instruction is the home and all composition courses should take on the form of distance learning.=== ===Perhaps it’s my own prejudice or the date of publication of this article (1998) - but what seems particularly short-sighted is that the authors seem to endorse the computer classroom as well as the pedagogy it affords in relationship to the traditional idea of a composition. Consider Yancey’s quote from another article (//Looking for Sources of Coherence in a Fragmented World),// “what is produced is increasingly something not only assisted by technology, but. . .created by technology.” The learning environment matters more when we consider what type of composition we want students to practice and produce. Workshop approaches discussed in //Contrasts// can be replicated whether students are using pen and paper, typewriters, or quill and ink because the composition is written. When (and perhaps we’re already there) we start considering coherence not in terms of sentence structure, paragraph focus, transitions, thesis statements, etc. but in the ways Yancy is proposing, (i.e. in terms of design, arrangement, the visual / verbal, etc.) and when we (and the assessments from on high) begin to place equal value on digital / new media compositions (designing a web page, producing a multimedia communication, communicating via online social space, etc.) and the five paragraph essay, then the issue of the actual contents of our learning environments (i.e. whether they contain computers, etc.) takes on significant pedagogical weight. (Side note: Perhaps this is why I found myself skimming many of the articles in Part Six. It contains fascinating discussions of how new media create a new sense of rhetoric and shared understanding through untraditional compositions – but largely irrelevant in an environment where state-wide assessments hold fast to traditional ideas regarding written compositions. Johndan Johnson-Eilola is exactly right on p.495 where he states, “the inclusion of the term ‘writing’ in computers and writing rather than ‘communication’ strikes me as part of the problem. Communicating with / across / within a computer is no longer about writing as a primary activity – even though we’re largely locked into it – but about design in the broadest sense of the term.” But it’s a moot point for many of us until the assessments change, until more colleges encourage the multi-media admissions project (as opposed to the essay), until college entrance exams like the ACT require students to demonstrate an understanding of design in the sense Johnson –Eilola uses it.)=== ===This issue of expanding the notion of composition beyond the written word has implications for many of the articles in this part. For example, I do appreciate McGee’s and Ericsson’s suggestion on p. 322 that the pedagogical value of MS word’s grammar checker is that we use it as a vehicle for exploring with students grammar issues in the context of writing as well as “interrogating technology” with a critical mindset, but ultimately we don’t have to worry about the power grammar checkers have in deskilling our students if one of two things happen: (1) we embrace an expanded notion of composition to include communication acts that transcend the written word or (2) we revert back to using earlier technologies like the typewriter. I’ve often felt that modern word processing software affords a certain amount of mental laxness that using a typewriter or even a quill and inkpot would not allow. In these older technological tools, thoughts had to be complete and well-structured before they were put to page. (What would happen to the art of cooking if chefs could correct mistakes and easily make changes well before the finished product is complete? Would chefs become less careful? Would they require less expertise / base knowledge?) If we truly wanted to produce students who mastered the written word, word processing is not the tool to do it. Should someone aspiring to be the next Van Gogh be using photoshop? Besides, we’re probably not too far from word processing software that takes spoken language, transforms it into something that sounds written, and even gives us a choice of the style we would prefer – Hemingway’s terseness? Lincoln’s eloquence? Carrol’s playfulness, etc.===

=Response to //Multimodal Composition//=

===Key Quote: “. . . students with a great deal of situated practice still ‘need help in framing their understandings critically so that they can question their own judgment and look at their work from the perspectives of audiences increasingly different from themselves’. One student I interviewed demonstrated this sensitivity to audience. . .” (emphasis mine)=== ===My gut reaction as I read this book was to highlight all the potential problems of beginning to teach multimodal compositions in a traditional language arts class, (e.g. the extra time required to teach basic know how of software and equipment; Common Core standards primarily focus on students ability to write alphabetic compositions; student access to tach issues in schools where kids come from lower income households; a consistent feeling that these projects / assessments belong in a graphic design / media production class rather than a language arts class; etc.) But in the spirit of the spring season – I’m going to make an attempt at thoughtful optimism rather than overly critical gloom.=== ===Here’s what I like about creating multimodal composition projects: they have the ability to produce in students a highly developed sense of audience awareness, which is, perhaps, the most significant attribute a composition teacher can instill in his/her students. I often think about what changes I want my students to possess when they leave my classroom. As a composition teacher - the simple answer is that I want them to be better writers, and I used to think that would mean they would know how to revise sentences, develop an argument, transition between thoughts, meantain focus, etc. But these skill sets don’t develop without the proper mindset – a motivation beyond the desire to jump through arbitrary, instructor-built hoops. Certainly a well-developed work-ethic is key, but I’m not sure there’s much a classroom instructor can do in this regard. I believe the motivation has to come from a desire to impress another with what one has created. To satisfy this desire one must be willing and able to see a composition from the perspective of another. One must consider how a reader / viewer will react emotionally, intellectually, and judgmentally. Every choice – at every level of composing and revising should be considered under the context of – “how will my audience react, understand, and judge this?” If I can design assessments, learning activities, projects in which students consistently feel the tug (the pressure?) of wondering how their audience will respond, then I am confident that they are on a path towards developing into competent writers / communicators.=== ===Multimodal projects like the ones discussed in this book – have a much greater potential to tug at students’ desire to impress an audience – simply because they tend to be visual, more engaging, easily experienced by a much wider audience, than a student produced essay. (For example, consider the time it takes to show a class a student-produced documentary or photostory vs. the time it would take for each student to read one another’s essays. I guess we could have our students read their essays out loud, but this seems to violate the nature of the medium whereas a multi-media composition is designed for this sort of mass consumption.) In addition, the multi-modal composition has a greater potential to allow the composer to witness in real time how an audience is responding to the composition. In a written essay, students must wait for feedback. Often by the time they receive it – particularly from teachers – they, themselves, have forgotten the gist of their point, etc. The only feedback that matters is that which is the most abstract and removed from the message itself – the grade. In short, from the students’ perspective, there is a significant difference between these two sets of audiences:===

(1) My one (nincompoop) teacher will be reading this sentence, pargraph, essay and will respond to it mainly with some sort of symbolic number or letter.
===(2) My class / people on the web / my friends will be experiencing this thing I created, and there’s a liklihood that I will be there to watch them watch it. But regardless – I know their response will be instinctive and real.===