Digital Writing

Since the topic of digital writing has been on my mind lately, I was pleased to stumble across this article about how children/young adults/students use technology to find date and information. I think it is really interesting, and recommend you check it out.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122893913&ft=1&f=1013

A Confession

Alright, I need to get something off of my chest. I . . .

I don't really like Peter Elbow.

There, I said it.

I don't like his writing style and I don't like most of his ideas.

(I know what you are thinking: "Wait, have you read [insert title of Elbow book here]? I remain unconvinced)

But . . . .

I used some of his (and Belanoff's) 11 methods for sharing and responding to texts, taken from A Community of Writers in my class. And they weren't bad.

We all read the same essay - an anonymous selection from the class - and divided into groups. Each group was assigned a specific method of responding: voice, center of gravity, believing and doubting, skeletal feedback and outline, movies of the reader's mind, and metaphor. Each group discussed the piece and collaborated to produce a response using whatever method assigned. The groups then shared their writing with the whole glass, which led us into discussions of how reading and writing are related, as well as how to use these methods as writers as well as readers.

So Elbow, maybe you aren't half-bad; though you will never have me convinced on Writing Without Teachers or Closing My Eyes as I Speak: An Argument for Ignoring Audience.

-WW

Speaking/Writing: Ballpoint/Fountain

Here is a video my friend Drew showed me. He was interested in it for the history of writing instruments, particularly the fountain pen. I also enjoyed that part, but found myself equally drawn to the way humans seem compelled to write, regardless of the genre, medium, method, language, etc.

Is this video historically accurate? Probably not. Are its viewpoints up to date? Probably not. Is it an interesting text? I think so. (It's also hilariously kitsch in parts; the scene with the man signing a contract for railroad stock seems a ridiculous parody of early Hitchcock.)

Enjoy.

Sketching with Patricia

As most people are aware, there are many different "learning styles," or multiple intelligences, as proposed by Howard Gardner. You might remember taking a test in 3rd grade and learning that you were a visual learner, or auditory, or maybe interpersonal (I think I test kinesthetic, which puts me in the wrong career path, I think). In her text, "Strategies for Using Sketching, Speaking, Movement, and Metaphor to Generate and Organize Text," Patricia Dunn applies this concept to the teaching of composition. After reading it, I (skeptically) thought I would give it a try.

My class had read a sample student essay about social networking sites for homework. After lecturing for a bit about their other assigned reading, I decided that we would take a few minutes to push our thoughts in new directions. I told my class that I wanted them to create a visual representation of the essay they read. I explained that it could be a graph, map, Venn diagram, picture, visual metaphor, a representation of your experience reading it,etc.

Here's what they came up (click each picture for a bigger view):

This student writes "This is what was going on in the head of the writer to motivate her to write [the] essay." The picture depicts a person watching the news, (CBS judging by the logo), which is doing a story on Facebook. The person imagines "Only you can stop people [from] being stalked online."

I was especially pleased to see this drawing. The student tried to get into the head of the writer of the sample essay, to understand their purpose and motivation for writing. As many comp theorists might say, there is always a person behind the writing, and this drawing really gets at that truth in a way that a discussion of rhetoric or a close reading would be unable to do. So often students think that writing is always something forced, but this drawing helped the student to understand what might motivate a person to do writing in a real-life situation. (I also liked the allusion to Smokey the Bear).

***

This drawing represents the complexities of the Internet as well as a rough sketch of the structure of the essay. I'm not sure if this is intentional, but the sizes of the various parts correspond fairly well to the different sections of the essay: "predators" and "bullies" represent a large portion, whereas "happiness," "responsibility," and "friends" are comparatively small.

In addition to the structure of the essay, I think this picture represents the overall "feel" of the essay as well. By presenting the essay as a complicated maze, complete with predators, dragons, danger, and bullies, the illustrator captures the feeling of fear and danger presented by the essay.

My intention for this exercise was to get people to think in new ways, and this student thought in spacial, visual, and interpersonal terms. Great success.

***

This picture made me chuckle when I first saw it, not only because of the humorous situation, but also because it perfectly rendered how I thought of the student essay. The author of the sample presents the internet as a gigantic monster waiting to pounce at any time. Rather than trying to represent the essay's structure, this illustrator chose instead to render the essay's main point, very successfully I might add. This drawing works on a purely visual level, allowing the viewer to apprehend the entirety of the essay in one glance.

Again, the student's choice of how big to make certain objects reflects the sample author's choices as well. In the sample, the Internet is something big, menacing, and de-humanized (and de-humanizing), as reflected by the large monster that dominates the drawing. The human, and by implication personal responsibility, is small in the picture and minimal in the essay. Another very successful drawing.

***

The last student writes "This is a map of Paula's argument. IT has all the stops and also shows the crossing idea. The road stops where the author ends; his stone age life. This may help show the organization of their paper."

I think a map is a very useful way to visualize a text, as it allows the viewer to apprehend structure, content, as well as the purpose or destination. This illustration does all of these thinks. I especially like the crossroads he included, labeled "Facebook is Good." This perfectly represents the counter-argument that is only briefly treated in the sample essay, and I think representing this as a crossroads - one that is not taken - is perfect.

***

Though I was definitely skeptical at first, as were many of my students, I think this activity was very successful. As I explained to my students, this activity might be out of your comfort zone, and it may or may not help you generate new ideas. However, thinking differently about an issue is always good; it helps you to approach problems in a new way, and if that new way doesn't work, then it helps you appreciate your old methods. Additionally, I explained that this activity was an opportunity for learners who might not get as much from lectures or close reading. My students seemed to appreciate all of that. The activity helped me to think in new ways as well, and I think in the future I will be more open to approaching problems in new ways, ways that are outside of my comfort zone as well.

Abolishing the Requirement and Postmodern Pedagogy

In “A Personal Essay on Freshmen English,” Sharon Crowley examines “the cultural and academic-ideological forces that keep Freshmen English in place as the only universally required course in the American academy” (229). Her work suggests that Freshmen English is universally required not because it is universally necessary, but only because of outside forces ranging from the public’s desire for “correct” English, pedagogical traditions, “the idealist notion of ‘the academy essay’” (233), and the stake of composition instructors in the field. In a somewhat shocking proposal (for some), Crowley suggests we “abolish the universal requirement” (241). It must be stated here that she does not mean that Comp 101 shouldn’t be taught; just that it shouldn’t be taught to everyone, by force.

Perhaps some compromise can be reached between the traditional position of English 101 as a required course and Crowley’s proposal to do away with the requirement (I wouldn’t be surprised if she is overstating her position for effect). Crowley points out that the universal requirement “exploits teachers of writing, particularly part-time teachers and graduate students [as well as] students” (241). What if, instead of requiring a universal 101 course for every student entering the university, English departments offered several more specialized writing courses: Writing in the Humanities, Science Writing, Creative Writing, Business/Professional Writing, Digital Writing, etc.? The department could maintain a more traditional English 101 class, but it would then be available alongside these other courses. It seems that this would give students the agency to choose a course that would more directly benefit them and appeal to their personal and professional interests/goals, as well as giving composition instructors the opportunity to teach within their interests. This mode also fits the prevalent model that emphasizes specificity within a discipline and could lead to Composition instructors receiving more recognition from the Academy, a problem noted by Crowley (though this might be making a deal with the devil).

If the aim of Composition can be stated as empowering students to control their own language so that they can achieve personal and professional goals, we might have to admit that that goal can be achieved in non-English classes. I can certainly remember receiving invaluable writing instruction from teachers in History, Biology, and Philosophy as well as in English. This admission will be difficult, but will not rob us of our utility; rather, I think it will engender a new sort of radical freedom.

***

This diversification of the curriculum relates directly to Crowley’s essay “The Politics of Composition.” Teaching the conflicts means that no position is inherently correct, which of course creates problems. Is the student who writes in support homophobia, racism, neo-nazism, etc. just as valid as the others? Does s/he still have a write to be heard?

There is clearly no easy answer, but I think Richard Rorty provides a few good places to start. With his emphasis on novelty, irony, and new vocabularies, he allows for all voices to be heard, but while constantly searching for newer and better means of expression. In Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, Rorty writes that the ironist

has radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabulary she uses, because she has been impressed by other vocabularies . . . [and] realizes that argument phrased in her present vocabulary can neither underwrite nor dissolve these doubts . . . .[and] does not think her vocabulary is closer to reality than others (73).

This seems to be the essential task of the writing teacher: to work with the vocabulary a student has, to show them how that vocabulary can be empowering, but also to push them to constantly improve and change that vocabulary because of its inherent shortcomings. If we look at writing in this way, it extends beyond the one or two terms of writing instruction currently required by a school throughout the student’s college career and even throughout their life.

Of course, the position of the ironist is one of privilege not available to everyone. As a teacher, I can only take up an ironic position if this issue doesn’t affect me directly, and I think the traditional authority of the teacher makes this even more explicitly possible. Students who are confronted with these issues every day, however, lack the distance from the subject to view it ironically. Additionally, it is easy to be ironical about someone else’s writing, but how do you take up that attitude about your own? Though irony may be somewhat useful to think about, perhaps it is not the solution.

***

Rorty defended himself against the label of relativist, and preferred to be called a pragmatist. I think as a teacher of English and writing I would like to strive for this as well. Rather than get bogged down in radical political concerns (which can be important), I seek instead to push my students to always be searching for a new vocabulary for writing and expression, which means always being aware of and challenging the dominant vocabulary of the time and place. But Rorty also recognizes that we simply can’t dispense with the dominant vocabulary and ideology, and in fact, any vocabulary we find won’t be any better. But it is the search which is important, and of course, as any composition instructor knows, search is just another word for process. And just like writing, writing instruction is that searching.

In the beginning, there was logos.

Alright.

I'm giving in.

I'm starting a blog.

This is my attempt to explore digital technology and its effect(s) on writing and teaching. This blog will function as half diary of my day to day experiences teaching, writing, and studying, and half as a sounding board where I will make connections, explore ideas, and attempt to sort out the cluttered whirlwind that is my internal monologue. I will focus on the issues I am exploring through my coursework and teaching, but will not limit myself to those: the vast expanses of the Internet beckon, and I would be doing myself and my dear readers a disservice to limit my writing from the outset. (In other words, there will be tangents). Not only will I be writing about digital writing, I will be doing digital writing, which should hopefully provide me with a new perspective on the subject.

As somewhat old fashioned, or a bit of a purist, or maybe even a curmudgeon, I have a healthy bit of skepticism for "digital writing," but I am looking forward to exploring its creative potential.

And here comes the ellipsis . . . .

. . . .