teaching: February 2007 Archives

I'm using the course wiki to lead students on a bit of a treasure hunt. I almost said a goose chase, but this search is not wild or random - even though it may feel that way, and those who follow it through will find something worthwhile at the end.

We're grappling (all of us, me too) with the concept of identity. Well, I'm not sure what percentage of the students are grappling in earnest, yet, but I'm confident they will be, soon enough. Most of them still want writing to be easy, a conversation in a visual medium that requires as little effort as opening your mouth and saying what you're thinking. Writing well calls upon a wide range of skills that can be loosely categorized as critical thinking.

The wikipedia entry on identity describes it as "an umbrella term" within the social sciences, and goes on to provide different definitions based on discipline (psychology, sociology) and subfields within these fields, such as cognitive psychology and social psychology. Identity is distinguished from the self, a notion more commonly used in philosophy.

Relating to my own research interests, this article on Assimilation and Community Vitality, investigates the importance of language to identity.

Finally, I find it useful to compare the social science conception of identity with the way the term is used in mathematics.

This five minute video by Professor Michael Wesch is superb: Web 2.0 ... The Machine is Us/ing Us.

Posted by Clifford to the aoir-listserv.

I did not hear him give the speech, but the written text is powerful in and of itself. At best, it will raise the bar for every candidate and change the terms of the discourse.

Senator Obama’s Announcement

Searching for the proper citation of the ENG112 primary textbook, I came across the Annual Report of the University Writing Committee AY 2005-2006. Noted near the end:

"In Spring 2006, the UWC discussed the questions concerning online presentation of student work (such as through wikis) and the possible ramifications these may have in First-Year and Junior-Year Writing. The UWC recommended addressing this during the 2006-2007 academic year." (p. 3). Which might refer obiquely (?) to me, since I first used a course wiki in Spring of 2006.

Also, note Section 4 on the Curriculum for College Writing (ENGLWRIT 112 and 113).

I assigned the students in ENG112 to check out the proposed course wiki site and scope out its potential via comparison with previous course wikis. Hahahahahahahahahaha! The joke's on me!

It does seem that the students navigated around the 'core' of courses and seriously considered the benefits and possible deterrents to using a wiki. However, besides the rap performed by a collection of Communication juniors (and me, shhh), all the really cool stuff they found was elsewhere.

For instance, a war against the Zombies almost (?) occurred last fall (perhaps they await sufficient players?) and a small world experiment might still be underway.

After class I wandered over to the Student Union Art Gallery to check out Suspicious Activity. If you need a chuckle or three, this'll do it for ya.

In class tomorrow, I'll use students' first two writing assignments to guide a discussion concerning how to understand the rhetorical situation in college writing. We have two different written versions (in The Text-Wrestler and the custom Penguin Handbook), both of which present an equilateral rhetorical triangle - giving the visual impression that all three elements (author, audience, context) carry the same degree of importance as the others. Here's a site that shows skewed triangles - with significance distributed unevenly, and includes the overlay of "medium" (in our case, writing, but it could be film, speech, music, etc).

Not only do students need to consider these elements, they also must learn how to assess the relative importance of each for any particular writing task. I wonder if we might be able to develop a set of criteria for deciding what 'shape' is most desirable given the entire rhetorical situation?

The Writing Program has developed a statement on using technology for teaching which encourages us to "teach with technology in considered ways." So explained the illustrious Donna to an auditorium of returning ENG112 Teachers eager to tackle the second semester. The Writing Program has put together an exceptional package of resources for students and teachers, which includes mycomplab, an online supplement to the Penguin Handbook containing loads more info and resources plus some neat features that folks might want to use, such as a built-in "exchange" for peer reviews, a "research navigator" to help direct one to useful resources, several model papers, and (for instructors only), some tips on teaching English as a Second Language. It's good stuff and students are paying for four years of access when they buy the custom Penguin edition for UMass (which, by the way, is half the price it would otherwise be).

Any teacher can get a WebCT/Blackboard/Spark(?) course set up to complement in-class instruction - this is a university-wide offering, as is the new Udrive system. A tutorial guides one through the process of loading and sharing files (another option for peer review), establishing groups, and even drafting webpages before they go public.

All of these are great and I'm definitely going to ask my students to play with them: I'm really curious if they have preferences for one or another.

Meanwhile, I'd like to keep using the umasswiki format (to the extent that students are willing) because, quite simply, it exists "outside" the bureaucratic "container" of "the university." I'm uneasy with the degree to which a public university education (in general) is geared toward certain modes of conformity, hence I am leary of uniformity in practices and tools. Let me clear, the Writing Program explicitly does not insist on extreme conformity except to the core of a common curriculum and overarching program goals. How individual teachers accomplish these goals and deliver this curriculum is - largely - up to each teacher.

I think this offers a rich palette of opportunities for undergraduates, not just in terms of becoming familiar with different kinds of technology (which is crucial), but also in the debates opened up about the public sphere, privacy rights (which differ by context), and the power of writing as a form of/forum for critical public thinking. Speaking of which, the integration of text with visual images is an increasingly powerful mode. Check out what the media scholars website, In Media Res, is up to:

This would be awesomely cool to project onto the big screen in the rooms with built-in projection equipment! Get your key from the Provost's Office, connect your laptop, select .mov at the mediacommons website, bingo. Contact AIMS on campus for assistance if necessary. (They have saved my hiney on more than one occasion.)

Meanwhile, some internet scholars have posted a teaching case on wikipedia, whose objectives are

1) To show the delicate balance between issues of authority, expertise, community consensus and norms of behavior in a distributed setting, and
2) To discuss success and failure modes in online communities.

What would you do if your reality was suddenly altered? Would you have the presence of mind to stay calm, to assess the situation, to act strategically while facing pain and the knowledge of your own upcoming death? The Jacket presents a model in the character of Jack Starks, who also manages to act kindly even as he pursues his own preservation. "Don't act like I don't know what's real!" Starks asserts to (mad scientist) Dr. Becker. Later, he clarifies to the good Dr. Lorenson as she tries to calmly describe his court-diagnosed delusional state: "The real events that have happened to me have been f*cked up, not my mind!"

The elements of consciousness and time are interwoven to generate a metaphor for the individual human life here on earth. In certain ways, we are all "trapped" in a jacket, prone on a slab, closed within a morgue drawer. Society dictates the boundaries: if we err in our interpersonal or professional relations punishment ensues. Similarly, we encounter strangeness and surprise. Sometimes unspeakable, the horrors of what can be done to us and of what we may participate in doing to others form the backdrop of everyday tasks and routines.

The test of our humanity is the degree to which we develop our perception and awareness of always having a choice of response, no matter what the provocation. Jack's life as "Everyman" - as anyone - is stark, laid bare by events and circumstances beyond his control. Instead of resisting the evidence of his perception, Jack accepts it - he trusts what he knows. Not only does he waste no time, he works within it, generating conditions for his own and others' survival.