Production vs. Connection

As a composition teacher, I often wonder if my style of teaching is the best style for my students. In my department, we are encouraged to stress to our students that writing is not about the product, but about the process. While having a great initial product is fantastic, it is not realistic for every student to produce a wonderful and original piece of work. So, by pushing them to think in this way, students should be able to see their writing styles change a little bit through the semester. But, is that actually a good thing?

            According to Stuart Selber, my way of thinking would be associated with the “paradigm of production”. According to him, this paradigm “ teachers embrace process models and even the social turn that the discipline has taken, yet they ultimately expect students to produce a thoroughly original text, one in which their own…ideas and words become the discernable anchor of the discourse” (Selber 135). In other words, teachers expect originality while also at the same time urging them to interact with the real world. As a result, these students could be thinking that originality has no place in the world of academic writing.

            As an alternative, Selber discusses the “connection paradigm”. This particular paradigm allows people to “focus on reorganizing and rerepresenting existing (and equally intertextualized) texts—their own included—in ways that are meaningful to specific audiences” (Selber 135). A potential assignment for Selber would be writing a “hypertext that interprets and arranges relevant discussions of copyright for teachers of writing and communication” (135-6). So, with this line of thinking, teachers are allowing students to use original thought to figure out certain packets of information could be connected with each other.

            So, why aren’t more teachers using assignments that fall within the “connection paradigm”? I think it is because other disciplines are not encouraging them to think in that way. English/Composition is responsible for teaching the college writing, so the university believes that we have to teach it a certain way that can translate to multiple majors and schools of thought. Even though teaching writing with computers would be extremely beneficial to multiple students, that is not what we are there for. We are there to teach them how to do research and write academic papers and that’s it. That is why the process method still lingers in the composition world—because we are being hemmed in by the other disciplines. Until they see the purpose of doing a more interactive idea of writing, we will be teaching the basics.

Work Cited

Selber, Stuart A. Multiliteracies for a Digital Age. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2004. Print.

The Impact of Constructivism on Literacy in a Computer-Free Classroom

           As I have discussed in multiple blogs on here, I do not have the privilege this semester of teaching in a classroom with computers for student access this semester. In a composition class, not having computers can be deadly especially if the department wants teachers to have in-class workdays to work on upcoming projects. I also know that I have students who do not own a laptop to bring to class, so that also becomes its own special issue. So, I struggle with showing students how to do certain elements on the computer when they do not have their own computers.

            That means that I fall in line with, at the very least, Stuart A. Selber’s definition of constructivism. According to him, this pedagogy “is a philosophy of learning based on the premise that learning is an active process in which students construct new knowledge based upon their current/previous knowledge” (76). In other words, I expect my students to be a participant in their own learning process. Even when I am lecturing from grammar PowerPoints, I want my students not only feel comfortable but also feel encouraged to ask questions about what I am teaching. So, when they are silent, it makes me feel like they do not care about what I am teaching, which is extremely disappointing to me as a constructivist teacher.

            So, how does my idea of constructivism impact specifically computer literacy in a computer-free classroom? A great way that I use this concept is if my students have in-class assignments that could be completed by using the Internet; I let them use either the Internet or their cell phones or other device that can access the Internet. That way, they can see that these devices that they use every single day (especially cell phones) can be used in an academic setting. By doing this assignment, students are able to combine the literacies they have gained throughout their educational careers along with the literacies they have gained from using cell phones and other electronic devices for so long. I am still working on strengthening this process, but so far it has worked really well in my classes. Are there any other suggestions to help me?

Work Cited

Selber, Stuart A. Multiliteracies for a Digital Age. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2004. Print.

Review: Instant Identity by Shayla Thiel Stern

         

          So, in order to continue my own individual exploration of the fields of literacy and girls studies, I decided to read yet another book in this field. I chose Instant Identity: Adolescent Girls and the World of Instant Messaging by Shayla Thiel Stern. In this particular book, Stern looks at the Instant Messaging that several girls of different races, socio-economic classes, and religions partake in. Throughout the book, Stern highlights how these young ladies construct their identities through these online interactions with their friends. For example, one of the participants in the case study can have a deep and introspective conversation about Christianity with one of her church camp friends but then also have a flirty and playful chat with a guy that she likes. Stern also explores how services like AOL Instant Messenger exploit these young women in order to promote their own business.

            Unfortunately, this book has several flaws. First of all, Stern has very limited interactions with them, so she is heavily relying on the self-perceptions of the subjects instead of her own developed perception of them. Secondly, Stern barely acknowledges any other way of instant messaging. She does mention texting but drops it quickly because it is still novel at the time. Because of this lack, Stern’s book feels extremely dated even though it is only 8 years old. Finally, because Stern focuses on so many girls in this study, these girls do not have much characterization. I spent so much time while reading this book flipping back and forth to the introduction of these girls, so I can make sure that I knew who was who.

            Although this book doesn’t focus as much on literacy as I thought it would, I can still see it being beneficial to my own research. After all, this research shows how young girls and their literacies can be impacted by online pressure. If you don’t know the hip IM slang, you are noted by others as being inexperienced. I would love to see Stern do a more focused and updated version of this research, but instead of focusing on IM, she should focus on texting and emoji language. After all, more young women and girls do texting than IMing these days anyway.

Work Cited

Stern, Shayla Thiel. Instant Identity: Adolescent Girls and the World of Instant Messaging. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. Print.

Why Having Computers is Important to Teaching Composition

            For two out of the three years I have been teaching college composition, I have been fortunate enough to have spent at least one class day a week in one of my department’s computer labs. Having this access to computers was great because I was able to give time for the student’s individual exploration of their writing or their research instead of assuming that my students have their own laptops or tablets. This year, I didn’t get so lucky because I ended up teaching Writing II, which isn’t taught in a computer classroom at my university. As a result, I feel like I haven’t been nearly as effective with developing a better computer literacy. My feeling is probably shared by many college composition teachers as a survey conducted in the early 2000s shows “that only 25 percent of the graduate teaching assistants in rhetoric and composition programs have an opportunity to teach writing in a computer-based classroom” (qtd. in Selber 7). Of course, this survey is dated, but I’m sure that many teachers are still in my situation. So, although Selber says that this lack to direct computer access shouldn’t be a barrier in teaching composition, but why can it be?

            I have two basic theories. The first theory is that students don’t have the time or the ability to have the direct interaction with the computers. In the past, I have taught how to do basic research and then allowed them to have some time to do their own research on the university’s computers. Without that ability, I am expecting them to listen to me teach and then go home and remember everything. That is just not realistic for even the most overachieving student. The second theory is that students just don’t see how applicable these computer skills are without actually getting the opportunity to test those skills out. English and composition are often seen as not important because they are not “applicable” in their lives, which is not true. We, as composition teachers, have to push our students to see that despite computers, we can still learn more about composition. However, I dread that with today’s technology-minded students, not teaching composition with computers could be the death knell for the modern composition classroom. Hopefully, composition departments will learn that lesson sooner rather than later.

Work Cited

Selber, Stuart A. Multiliteracies for a Digital Age. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2004. Print.