Revolution Lullabye

June 3, 2009

Apostel and Folk, First Phase Information Literacy on a Fourth Generation Website

Apostel, Shawn and Moe Folk. First Phase Information Literacy on a Fourth Generation Website: An Argument for a New Approach to Website Evaluation Criteria. Computers and Composition (Spring 2005).

Writing instructors need to change how they teach students to evaluate online sources both to account for students’ own “insider” knowledge of online sources and to account for the shift from alphabetic, text-centered criteria to integrated, multimodal digital design. Their article explains the current shift to incorporate visual literacies into the teaching of composition and gives an overview (with examples) of the four generations of web site design. Old standards for online site evalutions favored objectivity and centralization, ignoring a multitude of rich, subjective sources in blogs, forums, and multimedia. The digital world is rapidly evolving – we have to keep up, change our standards, and teach our students to use it well.

Quotable Quotes

“as websites evolve from their text-only beginnings, the book-derived criteria for evaluating credible sources are becoming increasingly archaic.”

“Here we see that teaching students to evaluate websites based on alphabetic skills may no longer be a sufficient way to equip students to critique and create rhetoric. As websites move into future generations of development, they will—if the current trends continue—incorporate more digital images, video and audio files, and animated images into their designs. If these communication devices are going to be used to orient our way of seeing the relation and display of information, then we need to empower our students with the ability to negotiate these sources so they can critique the information being presented.”

“Before dismissing our students’ current habits, then, we might look at how they are “making do” and how their strategies can be utilized and/or improved to impact our current ideas of website value in the classroom.”

Notable Notes

4 generations: 1. heavy text dump, no formatting 2. introduce tiled backgrounds, tables, frames, animated GIFs 3. thoughtful multimedia design (CDROM technology) 4. all of #3 plus non-CDROM technology like online shopping, IM, broadcasting live

student ways to evaluate sites: who links to this site? where did the original content come from? what does this site feel like? (“technological ethos”) where else is this information found?

opening up subjective possibilities in blogs gives students a whole new range of potential sources to enrich their research.

lots of Kress, Selfe

language isn’t the only semiotic system


May 26, 2009

Kolko, Intellectual Property in Synchronous and Collaborative Virtual Space

Kolko, Beth E. “Intellectual Property in Synchronous and Collaborative Virtual Space.” Computers and Composition 15 (1998): 163-183.

Kolko discusses the challenges of citing conversations from MOOs (like chat rooms.) These conversations are inherently responsive and recursive (making it impossible to pull one comment out of context), sit on the border between the private and the public (making it questionable whether the person is publishing their words to the whole world, and thus whether or not you can use it), are a hybrid of writing and speaking (also making it difficult to know how and if to cite this material), and have no stable author (use of pseudonyms.) Kolko tries to define how to cite MOOs (which she does in her paper) and what can be used for research through the framework of copyright law, but then, at the end  of her piece, argues that we need to stop using copyright law to determine how we treat these sources, instead looking at the nature of digital MOO collaborative conversations first.

Quotable Quotes

“Definitions of ownership and property fracture when we rethink the relationship of an individual contribution to a larger social space” (164).

Notable Notes

conflation of copyright and plagiarism. Asks two questions: 1. how do we assign rights/ownership to digital Internet conversations (often anonymous/pseudonymous) and 2. how do we cite these conversations – can we?

internet researchers don’t have to go through the same loops as in-person researchers, they can stalk these MOOs and pull off comments and conversations like a fly on the wall, not having to go through all the work

what kind of space is the MOO?

uses feminist theory to talk about the blurring of private and public spaces, collaborative ownership and authorship

May 18, 2009

Kane, Internet and Open-Access Publishing in Physics Research

Kane, Gordon. “Internet and Open-Access Publishing in Physics Research.” In Originality, Imitation, and Plagiarism. Eds. Eisner and Vicinus. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 2008. 48-52.

Gordon explains how open-access digital publishing, which has now become the norm in physics (esp. theoretical physics), has changed the nature of the field: physicists now publish at an accelerated rate with short articles that function more as a dialogue between scholars. Their online publication (print journals are now used as archives) has opened up access to a wider range of scholars and students.

March 25, 2009

Gouge, Conversation at a Crucial Moment

Gouge, Catherine. “Conversation at a Crucial Moment: Hybrid Courses and the Future of Writing Programs.” College English 71:4 (March 2009) 32-362.

WPAs need to anticipate, not react, to moves to create online courses and curriculum in their writing programs. By anticipating, they will be able to retain control over the design and assessment of the courses, a design and assessment that should reflect the goals of the entire program, not just respond to the constraints of the technology of online teaching. Gouge contests the idea that assessment in hybrid courses is more objective than in face-to-face courses by looking particularly at the hybrid courses offered through Texas Tech in its ICON (Interactive Composition Online Program). Gouge’s article includes a brief section of the origins of online teaching – pointing out that it has its roots in centuries-old correspondance studies – and explains both the advantages and disadvantages of “hybrid” courses.

Quotable Quotes

“There is no such thing as value-free, objective hierarchy of power, even if that power is distributed” (relates to assessment in online courses.) (355).

“In spite of ICON’s best intentions to provide students wiht a fairer assessment process and in spite of its explicit claims of the possibility of objectivity in evaluation, the structure of the evaluating process ultimately undermines these claims and asserts the value of the subjective position of the classroom instructor – the instructor with the knowledge and experience to make him or her a final authority. The result is a program that propagates the myth that ‘fairer grading’ means that students should be evaluated objectively. However, the result is also a hybrid program structure that undermines what it purports to value and values what its structure is claimed to have been designed to prevent” (356).

“We need to be careful not to allow the technology to structure our programs, even if our programs are being restructured to incorporate the best uses of new technologies. Writing programs ought to be designed such that the program structure supports the logic of the rhetorical processes that the program intends to teach students” (342).

Notable Notes

with hybrid courses – lead with the values of the program

WPAs have the responsibility to teach themselves about online teaching to act as the best advocates and designers for their programs

February 8, 2009

Moran, Technology and the Teaching of Writing

Moran, Charles. “Technology and the Teaching of Writing.” 203-223.

Computer-based technology is knit into the very nature of modern composition pedagogy. Four of the most prominent ones (and the ones most theorized and written about in the field) are word processing (which allow for easier revising and drafting but can mislead the student with auto-correct functions that do not take into account the writer’s context); e-mail (increases informal communication between student and instructor, for the good and the bad); online discussion forums (increased the amount of writing our students did and allowed for quiet students to voice their opinions, but can easily get out of hand, so it’s best to focus the discussion around a collaborative task), and the Internet (discussion and production of hypertexts, online research.) Those teaching with technologies must be aware that technologies don’t erase differences between students (English-centered Internet does not accurately reflect the diversity of society or the classroom) and must keep in mind issues of access (what students have access to use for assignments, both at home, in the workplace, and on campus.) Finally, it is essential that teachers using technology continually train themselves to keep updated about the latest applications to inform their teaching and help their students.

Quotable Quotes

Want students to become “reflective and critical users of emerging technologies” (220)

Notable Notes

Sources: Hawshier et al Computers and the Teaching of Writing in Higher Education; Palmquist Transitions: Teaching Writing in Computer-Supported and Traditional Classrooms; Computers and Composition journal

Language of email – discourse conventions: Hawshier, “The Rhetorics and Languages of Electronic Mail”; ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Exchange); English-only standards

women and men in online chat rooms

computer use among basic writers, women, race issues, ESL classrooms

Hobson, Writing Center Pedagogy

Hobson, Eric H. “Writing Center Pedagogy.” 165-182.

The writing center provides a space and a place for a unique pedagogical experience that cannot be replicated in the writing classroom: it is an individualized, collaborative learning relationship between student and tutor that can last beyond one semester and does not have to worry about a final evaluative grade. The early writing centers were considered labs designed to handle remedial students and non-native students – those students that no one knew how to “deal with” in the writing classroom – but has since transformed to a university-wide service that is often on the forefront of instructional technologies and collaborative principles. Writing center pedagogy is based in social constructivist theories, and the one-on-one peer tutoring relationship emphasizes how knowledge and learning emerges out of soical relationships.

Notable Notes

foreground individual development and goals, not grades

institutional space and place of the writing center: physical location, where it is administered from, how it is staffed and administered

OWL online writing lab; Hobson “Wiring the Writing Center”

Stephen North “The Idea of a Writing Center”; Kinkead/Harris, Writing Centers in Context: Twelve Case Studies; Petit, “What Do We Talk About;” Ede, Hemmeter, Hobson, “Maintaining Our Balance”; Bruffee “Peer Tutoring”; Harris “Talking in the Middle”; Ede “Writing as a Social Process”; Gillam “Writing Center Ecology”; Lunsford “Collaboration”; Murphy, Law, and Sherword; Wallace/Simpson; Murray; Harris “Teaching One-to-One”; Clark, “Writing in the Center”

Blog at