These are the steps to participate in this final assignment:1.Select a recent article from these journals, College Composition
and Communication, College English, Composition Studies, Computers
and Composition, JAC: A Journal of Composition Theory.
2. Post your article review by replying to this entry by November 22nd, at 5:00 pm. Your post should include a summary of the text, an explanation for why you think it is important, and how and why you think it is useful.
3. After you've posted your review, reply to at least three of your colleagues' posts (such as asking question/clarification, etc.) by Wednesday, Nov 27th, at 11:59 pm.
4. Continue the conversation on your or others' entry up until Sunday, Dec 1st, by 11:49 pm.
I chose an article from JAC. "Conversations With the Oriental Man:An Approach to the Imagination in the Writing Class." by Richard Koch is about a college freshman professor that wanted a way to better teach his students how to bring their real voice into their writing. He started his argument with this basic understanding that "Everyone knows that imagination is key to creating the most lively and effective writing." I really liked this quote because I agree 100% with it. I find it funny that teachers find it unnecessary to preach imagination to college freshmen just because they are college freshmen. Koch conducted many years of research and found that imagination should have a bigger importance in the classroom.
ReplyDeleteKoch then conducted two experiments with a new bunch of freshmen. For his first test his modeled it from a article by McCall that tested sixth graders imaginations and how they then adapted that to their writing. Koch began the experiment like McCall and read the students "tall tales." then he told the students to close their eyes and fantasize they were in the forest and someone with "powers" of any given kind came and met them in the forest. Koch was surprised that every student came up with very varied and vivid accounts of what happened in the woods.
In the second experiment, Koch wanted his students to be faced with a problem solving experience while they fantasized. This time Koch told his students to close their eyes and imagine they were on the campus library steps and someone that they valued or respected would come along and give them advice about whatever problem they were having.
In both experiments, Koch came to the conclusion that having his students meditate and fantasize before they wrote was actually beneficial. He had created a new way to interpret the prewriting process. Koch believed that by conducting these experiences we could generate context where imagination can offer advice to his students; thus allowing them to feel free and safe to write about whatever came in their minds.
I think that this article was so brilliant. Just because students reach the college level does not mean that they should have to turn off their imagination to produce a college level paper. I think that it is important to note that imagination can be used in all aspects of writing not just in a creative writing course. If we used Koch's experiment and prompted students to open their minds before they put pen to paper, it could be very beneficial. If we teach kids to relax and take some of the pressure off writing a paper, I think that teachers might be surprised at the quality of writing that may be produced.
I totally agree with you! I once had a teacher that used to bring all sorts of stuff to class and make us write for the first fifteen minutes about the first thing that came to mind when we saw it. Sometimes it was random objects from the house, and I would remember thinking "how am I supposed to write about shampoo?" Other times items that I had never seen from the 1800's would be brought in. These stories were the most interesting, and some very amusing once I found out what the item actually was! If you had the opportunity to teach a class like this, would you use these tactics? Have you had an experience at Metro where the teacher steps a little out of the box to inspire you? I love to hear those stories!
DeleteVery cool article, Caylee. It is definitely true that college freshman can use this imagination push just as much as a sixth grade class. And it is sad that college professors often do not think about this. The experiments Koch conducted sound very interesting, and the results are not surprising! Students could do so much more with their writing if they used their imagination. I think about my own experiences... I have written SO MANY papers for college courses. I wish that some of those could have been approached in a more creative manner. I believe I would be more proud of my writing if I had written more creatively.
DeleteMe too :) If it was allowed maybe I would actually enjoy writing academic papers
DeleteI love this concept! Teaching to play into one's imagination can do so much for their writing abilities and voice. I won an award in high school for an essay my teacher made me write about industrial sized mustard dispensers. He gave us the dumbest assignment, and we had to use our imaginations to come up with something interesting to say about...mustard. and I actually won awards for it! Since then, I've really tried to keep that mentality of creativity and exploration in my writing, but it's hard when so many professors have certain expectations - like being able to skim through your paper and check off every box of the rubric. So many jokes and creative moments get edited out, and our writing suffers greatly. More than Dr. Rivas with his cane. True story.
DeleteWhat insight, Caylee! It is often the most unorthodox of approaches that beget the greatest success. To embrace imagination, I would say, is to put forth one's own self and your process. Like a shining coat of mail that gleams bright over the battlefield, it makes you unique. And that uniqueness seems to me the quest which you writers so oft aspire to.
DeleteHowever, I have one issue to raise. You say that this meditative first step would prompt your apprentice scholars to relax, that the pressures of writing would be lifted. My question of you is but this: How? True, getting into the proper state of mind is crucial for any task. But harnessing imagination, collecting the resources for writing, is one part. Putting the pieces together is entirely another, complete with stresses all it own.
This is interesting because this addresses the issue of prewriting. I agree with you that imagination should come first with writing, but it seems the idea is to brainstorm inside the mind before writing anything down. I wonder if their imaginations would be as strong if they wrote down their imaginings as it was happening, rather than thinking about it before hand. Maybe writing down anything would give the students that "proper state of mind" that Sundar suggests.
DeleteI actually think it might be helpful for students to talk in a group first before brainstorming about the topic or about whatever the teacher wants then to talk about. This could help then really get into the mode of thinking. This would be opposite of writing down the brianstorming for it would be more audio....or they could just brainstorm in their heads too. Just some ideas.
- Larena
This article sounds very interesting! I have the unique position of being a student while coaching/teaching some younger college students in dance and color guard. One of my students recently told me she was so glad she stuck with dance because now that she's in college she has no chance to be creative anymore, and I found that sad yet quite true. Those first couple years of college may very well be the reason I am just now finishing my degree. My General Ed classes were not classes I was genuinely interested in, but I had to take them. They were often times dry, boring, passing of information. Bringing some imagination into college classrooms could be a way to make those requirements that may not be everyone's interest a little easier for students to get through. As someone who is moving from a very imaginative age level of teaching with Kindergarteners into a more analytical level with secondary students, I hope that I can find ways to incorporate imagination into teaching.
DeleteI agree that some of the gen ed courses can be boring, but there are some teachers here at metro that do their best to make it interesting. I had some amazing, creative teachers that made literature and history very fun. I am sorry that some of you did not get the chance to be involved in their courses!
DeleteThere have been several instances where I can look back at some of the lesser academic papers that I wrote and feel that I did them justice way more than the ones that were full on "academic for the grade mode." Very cool article. Creativity should definitely not stop in college.
DeleteI'm wondering how this fantasizing/pre-writing approach can be used by students? Not to take away from the ingenuity of the method, but in both instances where the method was employed, it was in a specific activity for a specific purpose and that is to cultivate creativeness. But if you were to tell students to write an academic essay and use this method on their own, would the creative voices still be apparent? Because if we were to categorize the nature of the activity, it's obvious that it was a creative assignment. So I'm unsure if it would produce the same results if you were to tell them to write about abortion or capital punishment. I think the crossover between boundaries between creative writing and academic writing is still a gray area. However, I would like to see these lines more defined or blended.
DeleteI chose an article entitled: What We Really Value: Redefining Scholarly Engagement in Tenure and Promotion Protocols written by Michael Day, Susan H Delagrange, Mike Palmquist. Michael A. Pemberton, and Janice R. Walker. They wrote about the lack of respect and visibility of fields in composition in relation to attempts at tenureship. The fields that they concentrate on are as follows: Digital Media, Editorial and Curatorial work, and Administration and Leadership.
ReplyDeleteEach field required a different approach to tenureship and recommendations were presented for each. in addition each included a case study to assist in validation the need for tenureship in that field.
Even though it was broken down field by field the problem that each of them faced was that the prerequisite for tenureship is defined as publishing books and each of these fields create their content in other ways. Digital media publishes to online journals that, because of their unlimited page size, are seen as less difficult to become published by. Editorial and Curatorial work create and/or manage collaborative works where the credit for works is more nebulous. While Administration and Leadership positions generate People not works as the fruits of their works.
Similarly the solution to each problem boils down basically to an increase in the participation and lauding of these new fields and their works by established and respected faculty.
This article is important because emerging and ignored fields constantly need to have their invalidity highlighted in order to keep the relevancy of the academy current. This is important because without remaining current the university will fade and die.
The use of supplementary case studies and instances help to promote the fact that the tenureship issues actually are an issue and this opens the possibility of other emerging fields in english, like Rhet. Comp., need this sort of attention. It also opens the accepted definitions up to being questioned. Questioning is always an academically valuable thing.
I like that you chose this article. I didnt realize how narrow the variation of topics are when writing for tenure. My question actually goes to professor rivas, what topic have you chosen and does it fall into one of these categories?
DeleteI'm not sure if you were intentionally trying to focus on the point that the field of composition has it's own standard for different departments, but what stuck with me is the fact that these departments have their own standard to achieve tenureship. This resonates with the social epistemic method that we've learned. But I'm unsure how it leads to
Delete"This article is important because emerging and ignored fields constantly need to have their invalidity highlighted in order to keep the relevancy of the academy current. This is important because without remaining current the university will fade and die."
I do think that this is a valid point and it is an important discussion, but I'm unsure how this problem can be remedied or addressed for improvement.
Throughout this semester, we have been spending time learning about the different approaches to teaching writing, and the philosophies behind them. "Directing First Year Writing: The New Limits of Authority" by Shirley K Rose, Lisa S Mastrangelo, and Barbara L'Eplattenier is an article from the journal College Composition and Communication that goes beyond the approaches and philosophies behind the teaching of writing, and talks about who has the power to enforce these approaches, and how responsibility is divided among them. This article was written in 2012, but revisits/recreates the studies presented in an article written in 1989 called, "Directing Freshman Composition: The Limits of Authority" by Gary A Olson and Joseph M Moxley.
ReplyDeleteRose, et. al. decided to recreate Moxley and Olson's article because it, "became the article for discussing writing program administrators' roles within their departments and who had, and who should have, authority or power within the first-year composition program" (43). It has been twenty-five years since the article had been written, and they wanted to see if the results had changed over the years. Olson and Moxley conducted their survey through the mail service by mailing out questionnaires to chairs of English departments across the nation. They got replies from almost every state, and a sample size of one hundred and thirty-six. It was easier to conduct the research for the article in 2012, with the accessibility of the internet, which is how Rose, et. al. conducted their survey via Survey Monkey. They had three hundred and twelve respondents who were not only department chairs, but members from the entire program. They also left room for their respondents to leave essay answers to express further concerns they did not address in their questions. The questions asked in the more recent article tried to stay as true as they could to the previous one, but some questions had to be evolved to the advancement of twenty-five years of technology and research. One main difference between the two articles was that in 1989, they did not ask questions about the tenure status of the writing program administrators, and Rose, et.al. felt that this was an important aspect to the position of power in the department, so they included questions about it in their study.
The respondents in both studies were asked to rate the importance of the activities of the directors of first-year writing (DFYW). The results remained similar between the two articles. The actual distribution of administrative responsibilities is a bit different from what the data reported it should be.
In Olson and Moxley's article, they did not address the issue of tenure, but assumed that the majority of their sample was of tenure status. In this article, the authors were interested in what the difference having a tenured status had in this position, so they included questions about it with their data. By adding this insight to their research, they stumbled on politically charged results.
While the power in the department still struggles to be divided between individuals, another point this article makes is that in the past twenty-five years, we have done a much better job of collaborating together to make decisions. I chose this article because it is not uncommon that we read something in class from 1989 or earlier. I thought it was fascinating that these authors decided to take an old article that people still reference today, and retest it. It is very similar to what we do in class. The reason I think this article is important is because we always talk about what changes need to happen to the classroom, but we never talk about how to make those changes happen. This article talks about the people in the positions to make some of the changes the articles we read this semester talk about making.
I like the idea of retesting old theories. Too many are accepted on age and standing alone. What was the contention about who ought to have power in departments?
Deleteretesting old theories is definitely important. I retest gravity every time I walk up stairs and think I should be able to lift my foot only half as high as the next step, and not fall on my face. So far, gravity wins every time. Still, so much changes in the world, things should, and must be retested all the time! I think a lot of problems with freshman writing comes from lame assignments, and even lamer strategies to approaching them taught by professors. My favorite tactic is to take a stance on an argument that I think no one could agree with, and make the reader believe me. Shake it up! Professors should be creative too, if they expect creative, well thought responses.
DeleteWhile the Chair of the Department had the ultimate final say over decisions in the department, the article spoke favorable of how departments are working better as a group in the past twenty five years. The questions compared had to do with what were thought to be the five most important responsibilities for the directors of first-year writing(DFRW). The results between the two articles agreed upon the top three being: Remaining accessible throughout the semester, Communicating regularly with the chair, and Possessing strong communication skills. The results between the two articles varied between the bottom two between: Remaining current with developments in the discipline, training inexperienced staff, monitoring the quality of staff's teaching, and articulating policy in written documents.
DeleteWhat they actually found in the distribution of responsibilities was quite different in scale of importance: Articulating policy in written documents, training inexperienced staff, scheduling regular staff meetings, familiarizing faculty with new developments in composition, and establishing liaisons between the writing program and the community. From these results, it seems to me like they need a secretary so the directors can get to more important duties.
I also forgot to include my citation,
L'Eplattenier, Barbara. Mastrangelo, Lisa S. Rose, Shirley K. "Directing First-Year Writing: The New Limits of Authority." College Composition and Communication. 65.1 (2013): 43-66.
I think it's great that they retested old theories, and that even the way they conducted the surveys was updated (Survey Monkey is the best). I think that that alone shows how much 20+ years of development can impact us, and it also makes to wonder where we will be in another 20 years.
DeleteFor this article, I have a question for Dr. Rivas, have you seen, in the departments you have worked in, people "working better as a group"? Is that actually happening?
I also find it interesting that the top three most important responsibilities all really boil down to communication.
I would be interested to hear Dr Rivas' answer to that question as well!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI read a short article from College Composition and Communication by Kate Pantelides called “On Being a New Mother-Dissertator-Writing Center Administrator.” Pantelides’ article begins with a story from when she was 6-months pregnant at CCCCs conference in 2011. She was trying to focus on her academic career, desiring to seek advice on her dissertation prospectus and her new student writing center; unfortunately, when she spoke with people at the conference, she was upset to find that they always wanted to talk about her pregnancy. Now that her son is here, she realizes that he truly is her most important “identity,” but she discusses in the article how her three identities (mother, dissertator, and writing center administrator) conflict with each other because of limited time. She chooses to focus on where her identities overlap with each other, each requiring “care, curiosity, creativity, and patience” in order to be successful. Finally, in her article, Pantelides discusses how multiple identities work in everyone’s lives, and how the field of composition and rhetoric allows and appreciates the complexities involved with having multiple identities, “recognizing that these identities make us careful rhetoricians, thoughtful researchers, and effective teachers.” These identities are what Pantelides believes adds depth and richness to what we research, study, and teach.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this is an important topic to keep in mind when studying composition and rhetoric, because we all have multiple identities, as Pantelides explains. These identities are what make our writing unique and interesting; these identities make our writing our own. We all have different life experiences and these contribute to how we write and why we write the way we write. Whether it is our education, career, parenthood, cultural experiences, or family traditions, we all have very different lives, which make us all very different writers.
Pantelides’ article is useful for us as writers, students of composition and rhetoric, and in our future careers. It is important to keep this information in mind when thinking about and analyzing writing of any kind, your own or someone else’s. Personally, as a future high school teacher, I definitely want to remember that one’s writing is often determined by their identity. I want my students to be comfortable with themselves and write accordingly. This article was also useful for me as I was interested in hearing how Pantelides juggles motherhood and her career. I know that motherhood is in my future, but I am also passionate about my future career as a teacher. This article made me realize that these things can coincide with careful time management, and it is even more awesome to think about these things having an impact on my writing as well.
Interesting topic. I agree that its important to bring this subject to light because with more and more women taking more important roles in the work force, we can't forget that most of these women are or will become mothers too
DeleteMy thoughts exactly!
DeleteAuthor voice and identity seem destined to be fluid, as writing is an externalization of internalized perception (or a re-externalization as was discussed in class). Whether our tone shifts due to parenthood, or code switches due to workplace, our identity is anything but stagnant. I think that we become more subjective the more we experience, but more objective the more we learn. Paradox?
DeleteI'm not a mother, I don't have anybody depending on me (besides my dog), and I would love to hear more from more mothers involved in the writing community, to know what they have to say.
DeleteI also understand why people focused on the author being pregnant! There is a pregnant woman at my work, and I don't know much about her besides that, so that's usually what we end up talking about. People tend to focus on the obvious when making conversation because it's almost...easier to talk to them about that subject, you already kind of know the questions to ask women when they're pregnant.
As for identities in writing, one could argue that every time you sit down to write your identity is different, and I think that's something a lot of writers and instructors tend to forget about people. It also explains why writers lock themselves up and try to write an entire essay or novel in one sitting (maybe they are trying to write from a certain identity, and if they leave their piece of work, when they come back, they will have a different "identity".)
After reading through about five articles, I finally found one in College Composition and Communication. It was an article by Ted Kesler that reviewed and analyzed Eli Goldblatt’s Writing Home: A Literacy Autobiography. Kesler gives a short history about the book, stating that Goldblatt gave his college students a literacy narrative assignment every year so that students could begin, “recognizing each individual’s distinct literacy journey, discerning and valuing multiple literacies, challenging the misconception of one neutral, universal set of literacy skills, and honoring the social, historical, political, and cultural dimensions that shape our literate lives,” (141). Writing Home was Goldblatt’s way of fulfilling the assignment himself. Kesler summarizes each chapter’s main points and I wondered why this autobiography was important to world of composition theory, but Kesler unearths three major themes from the book, themes that I think our class has been dancing around all semester and what our discussions are ultimately trying to lead to. Kesler states that these themes don’t emerge until the final chapter of the book, however all the preceding chapters carefully build up to them. I also thought it was interesting that the Kesler reviewed this book for its usefulness for the field of composition theory, not for any other purpose.
ReplyDelete1. The individual and collective natures of texts, or as Goldblatt states “The bridge between individual and communal senses of self in language,” (143). Kesler discusses how individuals struggle with expression in a world saturated with others’ voices.
2. The materiality of language, or finding the words to say what you mean, and finding meaning through the words you say (143). Goldblatt discusses how he struggled to learn the language of medicine in medical school and his struggles of living in Spanish speaking countries without knowing the language. The materiality of language can also have a literal meaning, and Kesler discusses how books, notebooks and texts weighed more that all of Goldblatt’s clothes when he was traveling in Central America.
3. The desire for human connection that words embody. Kesler believes that, “Literature, rhetoric, and linguistics grow poorer when they remain purely academics studies,” (143) and that they need to be integrated into student’s daily lives in order to retain the community’s integrity.
Kesler, Ted. "Writing Home: A Literacy Autobiography." Composition Studies 21.1 (2013): 141-44.
I'm on to you, Not Batman. From the tales I've heard, only the true Caped Crusader would be so brazenly vague.
DeleteFrom what I can gather, this Scholar Goldblatt viewed the writing process as a journey, that one cannot discover what makes you a better writer than the next without exploration into the wide and savage world beyond the writing desk. That I can value: striking out to see what you make of the world as a means of strengthening one's writing.
What baffles me, however, is this scholar's odd need to overburden himself with text and tomes rather than things necessary for adventure. His overweight pages may do well for crushing the pitiful insects buzzing the jungles of this "Central America", but set foot in the Dark Jungle of Varsoon, and I'd wager a fistful of silver that he'd soon sing a different tune.
Fie, I've gotten of topic. What I was attempting to get at was why was the physical, literal materiality important? How does that add to the "valuing of multiple literacies"?
A pox on this board of keys!
DeleteHow could you deny me the second 'f' in off?
The last of his three points resonates quite a bit for me. Not only does this affect writers, but musicians and artists. I wonder how much of this attitude toward writing is American in nature. Also, I think that the key to numbers 1 and 2 lie in following number 3.
DeleteI think what he is getting at with the "weight" of his texts and the physical, material texts is that words literally have weight. Every time you write something down, what you've written, your tone, and your voice are recorded forever. Every essay you hand in went through the process of thoughts in your head to physical material. With our class discussions about the fluidity of language, maybe people forget that sometimes; that your words take up space.
DeletePART 1 -
ReplyDeleteI read “Intellectual Property in College English- and English Studies” by Danielle Nicole DeVoss from College English Volume 75, Number 5, May 2013. Interestingly, DeVoss begins her article by looking at another article published in College English but in the very first volume published in 1939. That article was “The Use of Phonograph Recordings in Teaching Shakespeare” and discusses how using sound, text and pictures makes the piece more accessible to students who are studying Shakespeare. This is comparable to learning today, and with this very assignment, to find ways to combine media and create different approaches to learning, however what was notably missing from the original article was any information on how to include copyright information or discussion on ownership what so ever.
DeVoss writes her article as somewhat of a review, looking through the entire collection of College English journals published and found several instances and discussions on Intellectual Property. She states ”Across the pages and volumes of CE, authors have compellingly, rhetorically, and wittily addressed the ways in which our scholarship, pedagogy, and lives are implicated by issues of Intellectual Property.” As she gets later in the volumes of College English that she is studying, she finds more and more compelling ideas regarding Intellectual Property. DeVoss shows that in 1994 and 1995, Intellectual Property first “emerged as itself a core topic and core focus of research, scholarship, and debate.” After this point, she goes on to discuss the ideas of corporate authorship, and the digital world. She uses Walt Disney as an example, showing that at one time Disney had “squads of lawyers working around the clock policing Disney’s Intellectual Property in digital space.” Concerns of Intellectual Property in digital space began to influence new ideas of collaboration, ideas of gifting knowledge, and participating in information communities.
Information communities, sharing information, and Intellectual Property have new meanings in our digital society. DeVoss states that in a new “remix culture” we will see new occurrences of problematic citations of Intellectual Property. There are numerous problems stated that are related to Intellectual Property, and DeVoss offers some recommendations for dealing with some of the issues brought forth. DeVoss states that “As writing changes shape, so must the ways in which we situate ourselves to those changes and to protecting the modes and means by which writing happens, by which texts and approached and analyzed, and by which texts circulate.” There is a balance to be kept between protecting Intellectual Property, educational fair-use, and copyright. As well as this balance, there is a changing definition of authors and authorship given the digital advances in writing that are now being made and used on a daily basis. Awareness and balance are the best ways to keep Intellectual Property belonging to those who rightfully own it and new ideas being created every day.
Sorry, it was a little too long so I continued in the post below!
DeletePART 2 -
ReplyDeleteGuidelines and citations affect every college student. We have to know the proper way to cite information or suffer consequences set upon us by the institutions we attend. As we continue to learn through different types of media such as apps, software, discussion boards, recorded information, emails, etc. we will need to continue to develop new ways to cite the information we are using. Looking at the latest MLA Handbook, we can find ways to cite performances, interviews, visual art, CD-ROM/DVD-ROM, and digital files. Even with all of those ways to cite specific text, the ideas of Intellectual Property and the guidelines can be more of a gray area. How is it determined if an idea is original or gained from someone else?
I found the quote I used above especially interesting, the idea that “As writing changes shape, so must the ways in which we situate ourselves to those changes...” The world of writing is expanding now due to digital means and the more we are acquainted with the new ideas of writing, authorship and ownership, the better situated we are to protect our own Intellectual Property as well as protecting the Intellectual Property of other writers.
Cited -
DeVoss, Danielle Nicole. "Intellectual Property in College English- and English Studies." College English 75.5 (2013): 534-547.
Its pretty awesome how much stuff is not iPad friendly. Oh wait, no, the other thing, it sucks.
DeleteSo anyway, now that I'm having to type up something again for no good reason...
I find it kinda funny that I read your review right after complaining about the lack of attribution and misquotation that plagues social networking. Every day I'm finding people sharing things that are just made up (but sound neat, so they go viral), most recently the re-circulation of the Bill Gates poster. No one fact checks, so you can pretty much make up some stuff, say someone famous said it, and throw it up. Or find a pretty cool quote from someone smarter than yourself, and attribute it to yourself.
Digital plagiarism and misquotation is usually justified as "well, the quote is still good, so whatever," ignoring that sometimes who said it is not only relevant and alters credibility, but it's also, well, it's just wrong.
I agree, attribution of any kind on the internet seems to be brushed aside unless it is a scholarly journal, yet even then we're just simply accessing what could very well be in print.
DeleteSince I am one of the education students, I am becoming familiar with website like "Teachers Pay Teachers" and "Teacher's Notebook" where teachers share resources with others either for free or for a fee. I have noticed several teachers I used to work with who would use these sites and cut off the copyright info/created by line on the bottom of the item when making copies. Usually if I asked they'd say, "Well, I just got it off the internet" like that simply wasn't a "real" place for sharing information and ideas and thus did not need to be credited.
On an aside, not fact checking on the internet is one of my biggest pet peeves! How hard is it to google something (and check to make sure the info backing it as correct comes from a reputable site) before passing on information? I'm ashamed to admit I know people who fell for this one - "The problem with internet quotes is that you cant always depend on their accuracy" -Abraham Lincoln
It seems that the more vast our databases become the harder it will be to pursue "intellectual property" claims. For instance, if I have an idea for a fiction story, and someone else has written one similar how would it be proven that I did not read their story, search the internet and see something they had posted, etc? I feel like there can be few original ideas any longer, everything is a spin off or a conglomeration of other ideas, so how much is too much when borrowing ideas from others?
DeleteWhat a strange land indeed, where scrolls and tomes are trapped within glass boxes! I have lost track of the hours spent enveloped by such depth of information and funny pictures of cats! Through my wanderings, I found many forums of discourse. Most dealt with daily trifles, those within chirping like flocks of birds hungry for gossip. But here: here seems a far more worthy seat for words! So it is to you, my friends, that I pass this retelling.
ReplyDeleteIn days past, soon after I acquired a basic grasp of your odd tongue, I came across what you might call an essay in a journal called College English. I did not know what this “college” was and there was not a single picture on this scroll, so I very nearly ignored it for something more gratifying. But, against my usual judgment, I read. Called What We Say When We Don’t Talk about Creative Writing, the scholar Gerald Graff spoke about what appeared to be a rift within the English department. You use such strange terms to name your kingdoms. It seems some of your scholars, the writers and the theorists, do not see eye to eye. In an assembly Scholar Graff had with the writers, one of them went so far as to say, “Dr. Graff, you have to understand: these people are crazy. Their goal is to destroy literature!” (272). Fie! If you cannot defend your literature, then you were not worthy of it in the first place! Graff seemed to think that the best course of action would be to lock these colleagues of his in a room and let them sort out their differences. Excellent! Let them settle it, with a melee fit for the battle-pits of Karkus! Let the strongest rise to power! Unfortunately, for Graff and me alike, his administrators ignored his recommendation. Bah, they are soft, and have no stomach for trial by combat.
This essay’s main focus appears to be this separation, that the distinctions between and within your departments is driving the educators of your craft apart. The history of the teaching of this English seems to be one fraught with contention and opposition, even so far back as to feud over texts Ancient and Modern. What is about a scholar’s morbid fascination that they feel the need to transform themselves into those long dead? Is there not a free bone in their bodies? A free thought in their minds? Graff tries to settle this debate by saying that there is little that can be accomplished with interaction between departments and within departments, emphasizing the relationships between them. Just as each warrior has something to learn from one another, your departments have elements of each other within them. A major part of literature is critical discourse. And the sooner this is realized, and the sparks of opposition are cooled, you may begin to see change.
I blame the introduction to your language for my new found wordiness. In days long past, I spoke at the edge of a sword.
ReplyDeleteThe importance of this essay lies in its message. A strong, unified department will never be achieved with such gaps between the schools of thought. There will be differences. No two people are exactly alike, nor are their thoughts. Rather than chafing against them, harness those differences and use them breed a unity the likes of which have never before been seen in English. I may value the merits of lone men and women, but no community benefits from isolation. Divided, other tribes would descend upon it and tear it apart.
While my faith in the stubbornness of scholars is yet unswayed by Graff’s words, this essay is useful as a start. Graff talks of how your apprentice scholars are disheartened from passions of reading by making them analyze rather than enjoy. That is one of the differences that can unify the department! Rather than shy away from the challenge, embrace it! There are two sides to each silver coin, and together they strengthen the bearer.
From what I can see, the scholars are too endeared to their bickering. Perhaps they need a stronger force behind them, to incite the unity they can attain. Perhaps, a leader. That’s it! Your kingdom is divided, but I, Sundar, will master your feuding tongue and lead it to the glory it so rightly deserves!
Graff, Gerald. "What We Say When We Don't Talk about Creative Writing." College English71.3 (2009): 271-79. Print.
Sundar, I must respectfully tell you that you've wasted your time - dog videos are way funnier AND cuter than cat videos. Bow wow.
DeleteCriticizing, defending, attacking literature (with swords of jeweled blades) is very important to literacy as a whole. Just as long as no one criticizes me, because everything I do is perfect, duh. But in terms of other writers, there are so many ideas and philosophies and styles out there, if someone reads it, and chooses not to talk about it in any way, was there really even a point? are you really expanding your own mind or the minds of others? I think that's the point of reading and writing - to explore other perspectives. Exploration without discussion isn't going to get anyone very far at all. What if Lewis and Clark never drew out the maps! (they did that, right? if not...you know what I mean). Anyways, discussion in any discourse community, of literature, essays, scribbles you make on toilet paper when you're in there for too long....it's all essential to the process of a literate person. Or creature, or whatever you might be.
I noticed the same observations in the article I read. While the Chair of the department had the say over the main decisions made, you could tell that the newer unconventional divisions suffered the most when it came to getting a piece of the pie. I really enjoyed your entry, and the language you used to convey your summary! In the article I read, there was a lot of mention of how far we have come as an English department being able to work collaboratively together to make decisions and new things happen. Was there any mention of this in your article, or was it primarily about it becoming a 'bickering festival' among members hindering the decision making process?
DeleteJaime-
DeleteFrom what I was able to gather, Scholar Graff says the department's bickering has lessened to some degree. But he mentioned how long there has been conflict, back to the arguments between tribes called the Classicists and the Modernists.
I think his goal was to say your kingdom, department, has always been a den of contention, and that without some level of conversation between and within the warring groups, it will remain divided.
Yeah, in my article i think they were just referring to the fact that our department is working better together now than they were in 1989. I did not see any evidence of them looking into the dynamic of different areas of the department fighting for the same things since they were mainly talking about the first year writing program. Unfortunately, we will continue to find different divisions of the English department, and each division will continue to fight for their piece of the pie. That is why the position of dept Chair is such an important one.
DeleteI read Iconographic Tracking: A Digital Research Method for Visual Rhetoric and Circulation Studies by Laura E. Gries. This article is about changing the way we research images in visual rhetoric and is supported with his own research following one image using this new method.
ReplyDeleteCurrently images are read like books, "we 'skew them into [stable] objects palatable for a print gaze' in order to discover how they function in specific contexts and fixed locations." (Gries 336) We look at images with a preset notion of how to view them and then only research using this mindset. He says, "In visual rhetoric, schoolars have simply transposed this reading practice onto images in order to decipher how images communicate and construct certain identifications and ways of seeing." Infact this practice he says is the most commonly used in a majority of visual rhetorics. (Gries 336) He presents an alternate way of viewing images, that instead of stable objects they should be looked at as individual events; this allows them to then "be studied as a dynamic network of distributed, unfolding and unforseeable becoming." I love this line, it makes me view each image kind of like a shapshifter; even if the image is exactly the same each becoming is for a different reason and sometimes that image will take shape and transform.
This new method is what he has called, iconographic tracking and is essentially following an image to see how it transforms and what consequentiality occurs because of these various forms and their "divergent encounters." (Gries 337) As with all of our reading this semester he is fond of citing everyone related to this topic and which ones he prefers. The one's he prefers argue for a "new materialist" approach to researchng images and viewing them intuitively allowing to see that they are ever changing in time and location and use. "Thinking intuitively about visual rhetoric also entails aknowledging the shifting consequences that unfold as an image circulates." (Gries 338) This new method takes these consequences into account when researching an image.
The author then puts the theory to use by researching the Obama Hope image over a span of five years. He provides some of the sites and tools he used to archive all of his information because he had to have a fairly large database of information to study. He then discussed how the image it's self stayed the same but the wording may have been changed to advocate to use a bank or to spark a cultural fight. He also demonstrated how the image was transformed to make new ideas present while drawing you in with this idea you may already have; he even found a site where you could not only create but comment on creations of Obamicons(satirical versions of the image). His research totally paid off because he didn't analyze the image and why it was constructed the way it was but instead studied the effect the image had on the cultures it influenced and how the image changed over time.
This is important because in today's multimodal world of communication icons can stick around and still change continuously because of the fast paced exchange of information via the World Wide Web. Also, images may have some similarities to books but it is important to see them as different and changing because they can change; often faster than a book. It's importance is also it's usefulness, this is a new way of looking at images and analyzing them and it helps to create a new way of reading images if you will. Images are instances in time that we experience we mentally snapshot and go on but if an image sticks with us then when we see other renditions we will notice them. It's making visual rhetoric human.
Gries, Laura E. Iconographic Tracking: A Digital Research Mehtod for Visual Rhetoric and Circulation Studies. Computers and Composition. Issue 30 pg 332-348. PubliShed 2013.
Interesting thoughts about visual rhetoric! I have been very interested in visual rhetoric lately after learning about how to teach using visual literacy in another class. I feel like it is so true what you said about images constantly changing in meaning, and it is really cool that images can be read in so many different ways. Understanding how to teach with images can be very useful in a classroom, and I'm glad I've been exposed to it over the last few weeks in this class and in others!
DeleteLarena Nawrocki -
ReplyDeleteI have never thought of the influences of other cultures in the English discourse. In fact, when I chose the article I read, I thought it had said Internalizing, not Internationalizing, yet I found the article to be a very interesting paper. The article is from the College Composition and Communication journal Dec. 2009 Vol61, no.2. Its written by Christiane Donahue and titled " "Internationalization" and Composition Studies: Reorienting the Discourse." Its mostly discusses the problems of the US English discourse and internationalization of other cultures with a few suggestions to help resolve these issues.
She begins by defining the problems. The discourse has focused mainly on globalization in the US classrooms and how writing and other education areas internalize "our world." She then continues to describe a "export-import model" within the discourse. The export-based ideas are how we use our expert US knowledge to view other cultures writings or other countries rhetoric. The import-based ideas are from how we look at the world's different cultural influences on the basis of English for writing. She emphases that the US is internalizing their views and that one of the problems comes from this, or as she puts it "we need, essentially, to begin thinking about where our work fits in the world rather than where the world's work fits into ours" and that "the fundamental problem of imagining internationalizing composition as export is that this is precisely its source as colonialist activity."
She then discusses the influence already found in rhetoric. She describes that we look at authors from other cultures and then we read about different cultures, but we don't implement these styles into our writings. She describes that the common US class is not in "tune with reality." She then discuses how there is internationalization in code switching that is recognized now. She explains the difference between comparative and contrastive rhetoric. English writing in US is more contrastive whereas other countries are more comparative. Contrastive features "oversimplified cultural stereotypes." She suggest that this be replaced with comparative because it integrates other cultures more efficiently.
She suggests that we need to adapt our theory of writing from a more internal view to a more broad spectrum that includes world writing theories.
I feel that this article is important for it does show how rhetoric is different in other countries compared to ours. One of the things she discusses is how the other countries include our theories in their school (a few don't, like we don't include theirs in ours). Once we implement internationalization in rhetoric, things like code switching and heritage would be much easier to write for or about. It would also help connect us with the other countries rhetoric discourse communities. It would allow us to communicate throughout and it would allow for a more authentic voice.
This article is good to read once. It suggest that we change our rhetoric to include more cultural theories and aspects, yet she doesn't address how we do so. I know this was not her intention, but it would be a much more helpful article if she did include this. It is still helpful for understanding the problem she pointed out. It isn't something that I would have thought about before reading the article. I simply thought that how we write is just how it is. I never thought that theories outside of the US would also be good to learn about or implement. Although I do fear that doing so would cause too much uniformity in the world. I think just a little bit more internationalization would be good, but not too much. Otherwise there is a risk of losing the base culture from which we write.
I'm in as anonymous because I couldn't get it to post otherwise. Just know that it's my post - Larena
DeleteSounds like a very interesting article, Larena. Of course, I am interested in anything about other cultures! I also had not thought much about the "internationalization" of English discourse, but I agree that it could be very useful to incorporate it into rhetoric in classrooms. Having traveled to several Asian countries, I can definitely say that cultures are different and that communication occurs in different ways. These kinds of things are important to understand in writing so that readers realize the author's intended meanings.
DeleteI also think your thoughts about being a bit hesitant to jump in all the way head first are interesting. I wouldn't have even thought of this as being something that could result in too much uniformity. I am not sure that people would really truly become like one another or if they would simply be able to understand each other better... I can see where you are coming from though; after a couple of generations, especially, the cultures would probably begin to blend a lot more, and I don't like the idea of losing originality between cultures either.
I think that it is highly unlikely for others to lose their other cultures, unless there is a huge push to follow specific rhetoric rules from cultures, rather than implementing then into the original. I agree that people would understand each other better if there was integration of other types of rhetoric. Some types of rhetoric may be even better than other forms that we use. I feel that some integration is necessary because of the globalization and world interactions today.
Delete- Larena
The article, Paradox and Promise: MySpace, Facebook, and the Sociopolitics of Social Networking in the Writing Classroom, by Gina Maranto and Matt Barton, is a somewhat dated article that still has a relevant voice in the modern arena. From the tone, it appears that the article is considerably older than the publication date listed of 2010. Though in any article that is centered around current or upcoming technology anything over a year or two has usually hit its expiration date, this piece still has merit, specifically due to an analysis of predictive reasoning.
ReplyDeleteSummarizing the article in any context beyond "its about social networking" is rather difficult, as the authors seem to jump around quite a bit and do not seem to have the most effective organization (leading me to question if they each wrote different segments rather than write each segment together). It begins with a question if teachers should be allowed to have social network profiles, somewhat continuing a similar theme in the next section, but with a question-laden rhetorical style. It delves into a short study of the idea of social networking, tailing into application in the classroom. In a rather disconcerting tone shift, the article jumps off the deep end into a metaphor involving post WWII American car culture. Though the metaphor of "cruisin'" is not completely outside the realm of poetic license, it seems heavily forced and probably went a bit too far, especially when the metaphor required an extremely lengthy history of said car culture. Following that is a section on privacy, which appears to consider the entire internet, not just social networks (though does expand later into how these networks are affected). The authors provide an analysis of identity creation in the next bit, making observations on the differences in the top networks, the reason for their existence, etc. They continue into a thoughtful and well-written explanation of symbol-analysis and the cognitive benefits of their topic, which I feel could have been the basis for an entire article (which is what I had expected to be the brunt of their research). The final two sections are less pejorative than the earlier, treating Facebook and MySpace as tools and accepting that they are not going anywhere, so thus should be embraced into the classroom and onto the writer's desk. It does touch on the titular paradox it refers to, though I disagree with their point; I would prefer to call it an evolution of usage, rather than a paradox (referring to the creation of the internet in general).
To say that I find this article to be a definitive work on social networking would not even have been true at the time it was written (which I suspect was within the first year or two of the creation of Facebook). However, the importance lies in the success of their prediction that this media format would eventually have to work its way into a modern classroom. It recognizes that potential for more world-changing usages of the networks, foreseeing the organization of interest and advocacy groups. I find this fascinating, as revolutions have started through Facebook, but social networking was originally the butt end of many jokes about computer nerds. The early thoughts of, not only a new type of teaching tool, but a new type of student, is mused upon, which is something being discussed in current education classes, and in forward thinking environments, turned from concept into application. The reason I feel this article retains some value is the reflection of where we, as writers, came from in regards to social networking (and in some cases, internet technology in general).
DeleteThere are far more useful, current writings that analyze, attack, and accept internet writing culture, but that does not remove the necessity to reflect on where we stood in the past, in order to affect the change of the future. The article did not quite get into some of the conversations I have had with fellow English and education majors (and writing professors), but it demonstrates that perhaps our perception of future technologies could be better examined through early adoption, rather than fear, trepidation, and resistance. Though the piece starts with that tone, it closes with the thought that the future is coming and that we are better served by accepting it as a tool and learning the best ways in which to wield it, than we are by resisting it, or denying it.
I think that social networking in the classroom could be very useful. They are going to use it anyway so why not include it in education. I agree that comparing history of the sports car to the internet is not that strong. It would have been better compared to Star Trek or maybe even something political. I agree with your idea that the term should be an evolution because if the article is important for learning about the history of social networking, then it would definitely help teachers and others understand where it came from and how it changed. Social networking didn't just pop out of nowhere. Do you think that teachers should be required to read this article if, say they were taking a course on using social media in the classroom?
Delete- Larena
I think it's interesting to see that even when social networking (specifically Facebook since I think it is the most used social network right now) was young, it was already being looked at for ways to utilize it within the classroom. I hope with more and more teachers entering classrooms who are comfortable with this type of technology the use of different internet platforms continues to grow with students. We need to engage students through things they are interested in, and right now social media tops that list for most teens and college students. How many students out there say "I don't like writing" and then turn around and type out a lengthy text, wall post, or status update detailing some part of their day. Writing is growing with technology to include formats that were not thought of years ago.
DeleteI really like your phrase of how the authors of the article had forseen the organization of interest and advocacy groups. I think that is one of the most useful parts of social networking sites. Granted I use mine more so for funny random & often stupid stuff, there is a lot to be said about how many interest groups and even movements that social networking sites have started! I bet even Mark Zuckerberg didn't see it getting this big... maybe he did! Who knows.
DeleteSo of course, I wrote out my whole post, published, and it's nowhere to be found. I blame Batman. Now, here I am, writing this essay, in full, for the second time. Wahoo!!!
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I read this article, "Embodying the Writer in the Multimodal Classroom Through Disability Studies," by Bess Fox. Preeettty interesting stuff. She starts off thinking about literacy by different terms, just like Rose did. She says literacy is the ability to analyze and create electronic writing in the 21st century. Sounds pretty straight forward. But then she takes it further, saying that for many people, their body limits the expression of their voice. Body IS voice, she says actually. I guess she's not one to believe in the soul. Still, our bodies are (or at least have been) our voice in practice in the educational world. Meaning, we use our hands to hold a pencil, we use fine motor skills to sketch out letters of a word, we lift our arms to ask a question, and then our speech skills to ask it. For many disabled students, this means their voice is not heard in the classroom. Sucks!
Every public building needs to be handicap accessible, with ramps, bathrooms, elevators, all that jazz. But for whatever reason, classroom participation is not included in this list? I call BS. So many physically disabled people are so brilliant, but their voices are rarely heard, simply because they are nonvocal, or cannot hold a pencil. By making classrooms multimodal, suddenly, their voice is heard the same way as everyone else's. Boo-ya.
This is like what we were talking about in class, with the blog posting during classroom sessions. At the time we discussed it, I thought it sounded….unnecessary. But in reading this article, I have a whole new perspective. IT'S ESSENTIAL! Education should be accessible to anyone and everyone with the drive to work hard and learn. By bringing technological conversation into a class, new doors are opened for disabled people who otherwise would have been left to sit quietly and listen. They can post to the online forum, and their thoughts/questions/ideas can be addressed equally to their peers. This type of classroom wouldn't only help disabled students though. Students who are often absent (cough cough) shy, introverted, nerdy, and just generally pumped on the conversation, will have the opportunity to participate from anywhere and everywhere. Conversations can even transcend the classroom and continue in the cyber (or now, REAL) world. Pretty cool, I think. We could talk about composition theory all day, all summer, and for the rest of our lives, you guys!!!
Lastly, considering all the technology available in higher education (lets see here….smartboards, doc cams, forums, websites, smartphones, projectors, free blogs...and all those other things I can't think of right now) there's no reason why they can't be implemented in the classroom to create a welcoming, neutralized, enriched classroom. Ya dig?
I feel your pain, I have lost my first review, so had to re-write it in a word app to avoid losing it again, then I lost a reply too.
DeleteHave you read anything about Singapore's education model? They are doing some really neat stuff with technology (as it is one of the key tenants in their teaching philosophy). It was covered in my foundations class, but I read far more on it afterward, and it really seems like they have their stuff together.
I think in the U.S. we are under-utilizing our assets, or creating unnecessary methods, mostly to line someone's pockets (iclicker anyone?).
I love your point about using all this linked-in technology to create long lasting discussion and collaboration potentials.
I haven't read about Singapore's education model, but I'll definitely look into it. Personally, I've always been pretty resistant to technology. I type as many papers as I can on my typewriter, and tend to do research at the library as apposed to on the internet. I also think iclickers are pretty lame, asking multiple choice questions and using technology to select ABC or D is hardly using technology, or even measuring knowledge ("hey shmuck sitting next to me, what's the answer?") but when really considering how technology can level a playing field, as apposed to just super-speeding the tech-savey, it really seems like it could make a HUGE difference for a lot of people!
DeleteFor someone who suffers day to day with multiple sclerosis, it is refreshing to see some research being done on how to make getting an education easier for people with disabilities. It can be really hard sometimes to come to campus, but for some it is the only social outlet and means to interact with the outside world. Late last October, I had a very unfortunate medical event where my body developed antibodies to the medication I was taking to control my multiple sclerosis. I was three quarters through the semester and lost all function from my t6 vertebrae down (about mid back). I was admitted to the hospital and forced to withdraw from classes. It took eight months to get a wheel chair approved by my insurance (by that time, I was on another medication and walking again). In order to re enter school, I am now on a probationary status until I prove myself academically. I am a member of the school's ACCESS center, and a Delta Alpha Phi- (a branch of honors society for the disabled). I believe this is unfair, and articles like the one you reported on will one day change that, so thanks for sharing :)
DeleteSuch an informative article. I was diagnosed with OCD when I was in my early teens and when entering college they told me that it wasn't a real disability. So I love seeing articles like exposec to the public, great pick :)
DeleteApologies, HobbleWobbleHobble, but I do not own a shovel. I am incapable of digging much of anything.
DeleteI can attest to the sentiment of body being voice. Motion gives voice to the voiceless. The jet-furred panther has no words as you and I know them, but with each coiled muscle and each purposed prowl, its message is clear.
I do not think I had ever considered the disabled and their relation to body language and voice. In terms of brilliance, I've heard tell that one of this world's most brilliant scholars, a Scholar Hawking, is entirely bound to motionlessness. His means of communicating are not unlike in-class blogging. Though his could be heard, the thoughts are being projected regardless of the body's abilities, or lack thereof.
It is a worthy goal, providing ample opportunity for all minds to be engaged.
I agree with Sundar that I had never considered the downfalls to disabled learning. It's something that deserves and I have to imagine has been addressed. Honestly, it kind of makes me angry that here we are putting up new buildings all over the school, yet we don't have the capabilities to accommodate to the disabled.
DeleteI have not had a class with a disabled person ever before, so I do not know if they do have opportunities to rightly express themselves. I have to imagine they do. A parent or family member to the disabled would most likely make sure of it, I hope.
Such an awesome article that discusses information that isn't really looked at as much as it should. Being a university that gets many students annually, you would think that there would be more accommodations for the disabled.
DeleteMaybe Batman needed your first draft for something important.
DeleteMaybe he saved Gotham.
I'll ask him, since we're bros.
This article is amazing, as two of my siblings are disabled and I feel like they were always overlooked in the classroom (or being stared at in public. Don't do it people, it's rude.)
DeleteAnyway, this article is pretty near and dear to my heart. What's amazing about all this technology meant to aid people with disabilities is the people behind it. The people who advocate for new technology in the classroom to help their disabled students are heroes. My sister's elementary school teacher (fondly referred to as Mrs. Liz) was always pushing for new technology, not only for my nonverbal sister, but for other non verbal students in her classes. This was way back when, before tablets were so accessible to people, and it was more difficult to get anything fancier than a DVD player in a classroom.
For those going to be teachers in the future, please pay attention to people with disabilities, because the people that aid them are just as important and amazing as advancing technologies.
oh my god it worked!! I should add a disclaimer to my own post about technology in the classroom - i'm not sure I'm qualified for such a classroom. This took me fricken 2 days to figure out, not to mention I had to write the whole thing twice. Go me!
ReplyDelete(and if this version sucks, it's because the last version was better. Cut a girl some slack.)
I had a hard time too, my first one was much better too. Instead of being smart like Shauna and dividing it up into two posts, I tweaked it to death until it fit into the the character requirement! It took forever! Right after posting the tweaked version, I opened an email Dr. Rivas sent me saying we could use more than one post for our summary lol. Also took me forever to figure out a way to get it to let me Reply as: but everything working good now, and this is a pretty fun way for us to see different abstracts to articles :)
DeleteI pulled an Article out of the Computers and Composition journal.
ReplyDeleteA Pedagogy of Resistance Toward Plagiarism Detection Technologies.
I picked this article because I thought it was interesting to see someone fighting AGAINST the use of plagiarism services. Though the author admittedly states doing away with those services completely is more Utopian than rational. Right at the beginning of the article Vie states she thinks the use of these services may hint at a deeper issue with the teaching technique, she states that using stronger assignments, conferencing one on one with students and providing scaffolding throughout assignments could help alleviate the need for sites like "turnitin". Now, I'm by no means a teacher/instructor, and I am positive that the use of sites like this CAN help, however there are instructors who rely solely on these services and that to me is cheating a student from an education.
Later she mentions how when using these plagiarism services, it fosters a distrust between the student and the instructor which I can understand, however if sites like "turnitin" are going to be used it's the instructors responsibility to let the student know to what extent. It becomes a major problem when someone is accused of plagiarism, isn't part of their trial, has no say in it, and is "thrown to the wolves" and the one condemning states "Well the website told me so".
One of the most interesting aspects of this piece was towards the end when she begins to show the differences/similarities between a paper mill site "schoolsucks" and the detection site "turnitin". As a former graduate of a Multimedia/Graphic Design program, it was nostalgic to pick apart each site, seeing what they did and why they did it, the site designed to appeal to the student and the site that appeals to the instructor. Vie encourages students to look at these sites from a rhetorical aspect just to see exactly what the teachers are dealing with and more importantly what their fellow classmates might be utilizing.
Overall I think the use of sites like "turnitin' can be helpful (even though google does the same thing and its free), but to require a teacher to utilize it (which some institutions do) is wrong, there's a great phrase that's actually used in this piece "it's legal, but not ethical" and that to me seems to be the entire feeling of this article, however that stems from a bigger problem with our society and not exclusively the academic area.
That last line...I feel like I keep typing something similar, in every class. What's the problem then? Is it actually our philosophy of education or is it the internalization stemming from how the entire American culture works?
DeleteI personally don't give a second thought to the usage of turnitin, nor should anyone else, in my opinion. Maybe if it was marketed as being equally capable of protecting a student's intellectual property this article would have never been written. Sure it is a sign of mistrust in the teacher/student relationship, but I think the hierarchy is being ignored. The teacher, regardless of his/her style, is still a figure of authority, and is responsible for the education of more than just the singular student.
It is far more difficult for a teacher to be able to recognize plagiarism, thus these tools were created to assist. We can argue all day that a teacher needs to be more involved in the writing project, alleviating the potential for cheating, but what happens then? Same as in any crime, the criminal gets smarter, faking their way through student/teacher meetings, peer reviews, etc.
I've had professors that required a certain amount of writing done in class so that they might compare our "proven" style against our homework projects, and they still required the use of turnitin. And still caught people.
What does the author want next? No evaluation or grading of assignments ? Or not even requiring that they turn them in at all? We should, of course, trust that the student will do the assignment to a high degree of quality, so why do we even need to see that they did it?
I personally have never had an issue with the turnitin program, but I have never felt comfortable with a program where you have a margin of error of thirty percent. I was told that you don't get into trouble with your paper unless you have a score of thirty percent or higher. Thirty percent seems pretty high to me, and it makes me wonder if they have that number set so high because the technology they use to check the papers is not that reliable. I generally do not have a problem with a teacher having us turn our papers into the program, but I would if that was the only means they were using to grade the paper. With so many publications out there, it is hard for one teacher to know if someone has "borrowed" their work or not. They still need to take the time to sit down and grade the work for content though.
DeleteAs crazy as it sounds, I am 85 credits into MSU and have never, NOT ONCE, had to use Turnitin. The teachers all have in their syllabi and on the first day a lot of them say, "I'll decide later if I will use it." But I have never had a teacher make us use it.
DeleteThat makes me question if even teachers find it useless? I think it does serve a definite purpose and I'm sure there are idiots out there that have tried to use someone else's work, so it baffles me that I have never had to use such a site.
But I will say that I remember writing an essay on an Oprah I went and saw for an assignment for Intro to Music... I can't remember the Oprah though. But, either way I analyzed it and I remember feeling I had come up with a brilliant theory of what the Oprah was really saying about society and relationships. Afterwards, my boyfriend at the time read my essay on it, and turned to me and said "Wow babe. This is really good? Did you steal this idea from the internet?" (His support was amazing!) Of course I hadn't! But it immediately got me worried. So, I went online and googled some of the key words and the themes I discussed in my essay, and tons of sites came up saying essentially the same things I had said in my essay! I was freaking out thinking my teacher would fail and think I had stolen my ideas. Thankfully, he did not.
Soooo, I think that right there proves the fact that maybe sites like Turnitin are not the best things to use. Because there is only so much room for originality anymore. Most ideas stem from each other. We generate ideas in class from each other. I would hate to imagine being accused of stealing ideas or plagiarizing when I truly had not.
I think that percentage is arbitrary and is decided by department. Turnitin gives more than just "how much matched." It shows how much of a percent came from a specific source and then provides the source. So if you were quoting something it shows where it matches in their database. In this case I'd say that 30% is pretty lenient, as I personally think that a third of your paper being from another source is a bit high. It is not a margin of error, its an accounting for sections where you intentionally (and legally) used another source. The way that they display the information to the teacher is also helpful to ensure that the student cited what needed to be cited.
ReplyDeleteIf anything, turnitin would likely error on the side of the student, as though the database is extensive, it does not have every document in the world, nor does it account for "new" papers (for instance, if you paid another student to write something for you).
It can pose a problem if you turn in the same assignment for more than one class that uses the software. This is illegal at MSU anyway, but I do not think this is the case everywhere, especially in high schools. Turnitin will absolutely bust you for plagiarizing yourself. Again, however, it shows where it came from, what parts matched, etc.
Oh, I guess I just thought that meant that thirty percent of your paper was copied. I didn't realize that meant properly cited stuff or papers you have done before. I don't think I have ever even had an assignment where I have thought to use an old paper, but I can see why it would be illegal to use the same paper twice. You make an interesting point where you say that turnitin will bust you for plagiarizing yourself; my question is will it only do it for using the same paper twice, or will it do it for using common phrases, and sentences? I guess I am more unfamiliar with the process than I thought. I just never really worried about it before because I do not copy work, but I am guilty of using the same phrases, and not citing properly (which I have been told recently is because of my out of date writer's handbook). Thanks Mark for explaining it a little more :)
DeleteInteresting .... I wonder though, does turnitin mark you for say entire sentences or paragraphs ? I imagine it can't for just a matching phrase or few words... The entire site is something unknown to me so I'd be interested to see how one of my papers holds up and what it looks like when the teacher uses it.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePart 1
ReplyDeleteThere comes a point in time when silence seems to be the best answer. I can think of the earliest time being when my mother asked me: "Did you do this?" Rather than answer and put myself in a lie, I just stood in silence, or ran away, still keeping silent. No matter the reason, silence is something most of us have maintained for some reason or another, in life, and more so, in the academic world of the classroom. We hope to heaven if we keep silent the teacher won't call on us because we didn't do the reading. We keep silent as the teacher addresses the class for a response when we don't know the answer.
Silence is something of a tool we sometimes hold onto in the classroom. For this reason, Cheryl Glenn's article: "Silence: A Rhetorical Art for Resisting Discipline", spoke volumes to me as I read it. (No pun intended.) Glenn introduces the concept of silence as more than just space between words. Glenn creates the idea that silence actually helps to create meaning. She uses her article as a foundation to shed light upon the feminist views "That our talkative western culture equates speech with civilization itself, gendering speaking as masculine and silence as feminine" (262). In pointing out the misconception that women ought to stand aside and keep silent, Glenn forms the argument that silence ought to be used to foster rhetorical listening, and as an end result, to create a "Genuinely collaborative rhetorical community" (261).
Part 2
ReplyDeleteThe reason I think this article is very important for the rhetorical community is that we have all had moments of silence in our classroom communities. We have all had situations where we did not feel comfortable speaking or we did not feel our words carried enough meaning to speak. Glenn's argument speaks volumes to those of us who often cling to silence as a mode of protection. Glenn portrays silence as a tool, as a rhetorical strategy that only when accompanied with listening can foster a genuine collaborative community. That being said, silence cannot be used alone. There must a form of expression paired with it. But, Glenn seeks to point out the strengths in silence and listening to give a voice to the voiceless.
"Rhetoric of silence, as a means of rhetorical delivery, can be empowered action, both resistant and creative. However, silence is too often read as simple passivity in situations where it has actually taken on an expressive power. Whether choice or (im)position, silence can reveal positive or negative abilities, fulfilling or withholding traits, harmony or disharmony, success or failure" (283).
This proves useful for our class right now given our current use of blogging. We discussed in class the notion of using blogging and social medias as methods for creating identity. If we consider Glenn's use of silence as an "expressive power" along with the ideas from Miller and Shepherd's article we read "Blogging As Social Action", the use of silence takes on an even greater meaning. Because we are silent and forced, essentially, to listen to the ideas of a peers through reading this blog. I am very glad I found Glenn's article because I feel it really resonates with this idea that blogging can truly be a purposeful and collaborative way of learning.
The idea of powerful silence helps to support the sense of community that we are creating right now with this blog. I think it resonates with the idea of the "disclosed self" that Miller and Shepherd point out: "The self that is 'disclosed' is a construction, possibly an experimental one, which takes shape as a particular rhetorical subject-position. In a blog, that construction is an ongoing event, the self being disclosed a continual achievement" (1461). Noting Glenn's pairing of purposeful silence with listening, and Miller and Shepherd's idea of a our constructed selves, the use of blogging as a learning environment, to me, really helps to foster the idea of a "Genuinely collaborative rhetorical community" (Glenn, 262) that Glenn seeks to achieve, and that we have been seeking to achieve throughout this entire Fall semester.
I used to be really quiet all through school, and would never speak up in class. It wasn't until college that I had the courage to ask questions when I needed clarification, or the confidence to share the answer when I knew it. I actually find that participating in class adds so much to the adventure of education. Not only does it help the information stick, but it helps the classtime fly by. It also gets easier the more you do it. I think the blog atmosphere is a good place to start. Maybe if classes would start off the semester with an assignment like this and get the students comfortable interacting with one another on the internet, it would be an easier transaction to classroom participation.
DeleteI definitely agree with you that some classes should consider beginning interactions online. I think it gives us that opportunity to create our "other" self, our online self, before we face the often scary task of showing our selves to the entire class.
DeleteI think that is why a lot of people prefer or really like online courses. I personally am not a huge fan of them. I will take them and have taken a few. But I see why they can be useful and engaging for some people because it puts you in that other realm to be yourself.
Having an atmosphere that allows you to express yourself the fullest can be very beneficial to some students. I have taken classes that require forced participation and that's where I find myself hiding in a shell the most. I believe that classes should take advantage of an online environment more often to give students an opportunity to learn to the fullest in an environment such as this one.
DeleteI'm with you, Apples, I generally prefer to be in the classroom, but have had to take online classes sometimes. If I see that the class is only offered online, I try to see if it is offered in hybrid form before taking it strictly online, but I really do like the atmosphere of classroom learning.
DeleteI chose the article Digitizing Craft: Creative Writing Studies and New Media: A Proposal by Adam Koehler from the College English journal. The article discusses how creative writing and the act of studying it is affected by the digital media and the different digital ways writing can be presented. Four different categories of creative writing criticism: process, genre, authorship, and institutionality. Process has to do with whether or not a writer can figure out what a certain piece of writing will look like or mean. Genre has to do with the definitions of the writing categories, or genres. Authorship talks about originality and talents of a writer. Institutionality discusses how teaching writing is used at colleges and universities.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to process, the article explains that with new digital media, it is not just about reading the texts to interpret them; it is also about participating. Digital mediums allow several ways to immerse a reader into the writing and so therefore, process must be evolved to fit these new types of writing with integrated digital aspects to become about more than just interpretation.
Genre categorization, according to the article, must evolve as well. With the available digital technologies that incorporate writing, genres can blur together. However, they can also evolve into more than their conventions. Therefore, categorizing and analyzing genres must do the same.
Understanding of authorship, or originality, must be rethought and taken out of the normal spectrums that were originally used. Now, with digital media, authors can show through more than just their own work. Because of that, plagiarism must be re-examined as well and evaluated based significantly on context.
The last category, institutionality, follows the patterns of the three before, and must be modified to fit into the new era of digital media. The ways that it is taught at colleges and universities must incorporate digital mediums and examining writing in more than the conventional ways.
This article is important because it discusses something that is becoming more important as years go by: technology and digital media. Technology will continue to get better and digital media use will increase as that happens. With the increase in digital media use, creative writers will continually be given more options in the ways that they can present their writing. Therefore, this is a relevant topic to writers now, as well as writers in the future.
It is useful in any writing class, especially one used to analyze writing. In fact, it could be useful outside of the classroom as well, in any situation that involves creating or analyzing writing using digital media. It is useful for the reason mentioned before, that it will be used now and in the future. It is useful to help writers and writing analysts evolve as writing evolves.
Koehler, Adam. "Digitizing Craft: Creative Writing Studies and New Media: A Proposal." College English. 75.4 (2013): 379-397. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. .
I agree in the importance of it, I mentioned in my piece how I worked in the graphic design/multimedia world, and the during that I consulted with a lot of writers ( both leisurely and professionally) on different ways of approaching their audience, or the lay out of their project. The days of the old "write your piece and make sure its double spaced" are narrowing down, more writers are trying new methods and ideas, specifically the way the paper is laid out.
DeleteIntegration between the two (writing and technology/digital media) is going to offer some amazing changes and opportunities in the writing world, and right now is a pretty rad time to be involved in both.
The core argument of John Logie’s “1967 The Birth of “The Death of an Author” ” is that Roland Barthes’s “The Death of an Author” has been widely misconstrued from it’s original purpose as a text. “The Death” was published in 1967 in Aspen but it was published again in 1968 in “La mort de l’auteur”, in Barthes’s original language of French.
ReplyDeleteIn 1967, Barthes’s essay was published in issue 5+6 of Aspen, “Over the course of ten issues from 1965 to 1971, the Aspen boxes housed individual print artifacts (including posters and postcards), phonograph recordings, musical scores, booklets, games, cardboard cutouts, and other varied objects, including a facsimile “pocket diary of the future” by John Lennon (Logie 495).” A key aspect of Barthes essay is the idea that although multiple writings, like in the Aspen, may have no connection or fluidity, it is up to the reader what connections they make between various writings.
Perhaps the greatest cause of confusion in Barthes’s essay is that it was published in “The initial French publication of “La mort de l’auteur” was indeed in 1968, in the journal Maneia (Logie 497).” The historical context of “The Death” is that it is regarded as a precursor to the May Events of 1968, even though it established itself in 1967 as a entity far removed from the historical revolution to which it was put in.
“The Death” has been inexorably linked to the May Events, a political uprising event in Paris, 1968. The essay had fitted well with a revolutionary spirit that was attune to the times, but Barthes’s essay should be understood as an artistic revolution “...failing to fully underscore his attentiveness to questions of authorship as they were being informed by an increasingly multimedia artistic culture (Logie 495).”
The allure to cite Barthes’s essay in 1968 instead of 1967 is because “... it feels like it belongs among the May Events even though it was not published in France until roughly six months after these events.” However, if “The Death” is put in it’s original context “... Barthes work was a participant in a pointedly multimedia conversation about the artistic process and the relationships among artists and their audiences (Logie 500).”
In his introduction, John Logie introduces the concept of author ownership in his article “1967 The Birth of “The Death of an Author”, and how the laws concerning the protection of ownership has been broadened from it’s original life span. He brings up this point to highlight that in the institution, the idea of authorship, complete ownership of a published work, is debatable.
I think there are a few things we can take away from this article. The first is the idea of authorship and what it entails. This essay speaks from a strictly institutional standpoint when it comes to authorship and any and all addresses (in it’s various forms) to the field of composition belongs to the discourse community and not the author.
As we have just seen with the misrepresentation of “The Death of an Author”, the comprehension of this address can be construed to fit one’s own needs and subvert the intent of the author. It’s difficult for me to agree or disagree with this idea of making personal meaning. In general, in the institution, different theoretical conclusions are accepted within a concentrated scope. In essence, multiple interpretations with adequate support can be argued and added to the conversation of the discourse community.
On the other hand, if we misunderstand the intent of the author, didn’t we misread the text? Logie pushes for a relearning of “The Death” in it’s original publication, but the meaning of the text seemed to have fit both as a sight specific work in 1967 and in the May Events in 1968. If Barthes’s essay is meant to teach us to create meaning across a multitude of writings, didn’t it achieve it’s goal even through it’s misunderstanding? But I can still see where Logie is coming from, if we didn’t understand it’s meaning in it’s original context, how can we even think of creating meaning between a multitude of writings?