Trubek argues that despite a possible decline in “conversational arts”, more people writing is a positive effect of new media. People today and writing and thinking more, and the new forms have past versions that need to be respected so that we don’t squelch any voices.
“Why teach digital writing?” Kairos. 10:1 (Fall 2005). Web. 12 January 2012.
I began with this article because it seems like a root question for a teacher. Before I can make decisions about how or what, I need to know the why. Kairos is an academic journal that publishes ‘webtexts” about the convergence of writing, computers, and teaching. Basically, it wants to examine compositions using new media, and its audience would include anyone involved in the teaching of writing at mainly an undergraduate level. This particular article could be useful in defending the teaching of digital writing because it reviews three separate occasions on which undergraduate professors successfully implemented multimodal digital writing in their classrooms. For skeptics who think it is necessary to treat writing as a process limited to pens, word processors, and paper, this article could provide a glimpse at not only the necessity of digital writing, but also the benefits reaped by students. The article is, essentially, aimed at justifying the teaching of digital writing; therefore, its findings have the potential to influence decisions made by departments, English and other, of campuses across the nation or even world.
I found the article to be highly interesting and mildly persuasive. It discussed the increased sense of audience, along with the feedback that audience gives the writer, in a digital writing environment. It also notes that ability of the writer to add video, images, or sound to his composition, and then to act as both the publisher and distributer of his text. The nature of digital writing indicated here becomes difficult to reject, considering what has traditionally been valued in composition. To further that point, the article discusses the rhetorical value of digital writing created by its dependence on not just on product, but process, distribution, research, audience, persuasion, and impact. The article indicates, and I agree, that digital writing may very well include more of the “classical rhetorical cannon than mainstream compositions do.”
Assuming that justifies the why behind teaching digital writing, then we must continue to look at the how, which the article does next when it discusses classrooms as networks where students are free to make choices about how they interact with text. The article outlines some basic pedagogical principles: situated in contexts of rich affordances for writing; rooted in a rhetoric that is technological, social, and cultural; linked to a thoughtful, critical consciousness of technology; framed by learning how to learn; and anchored by multimodal approaches to writing.
As a high school teacher, I say the article is mildly persuasive because while I agree with its suggestions (especially the one that digital writing is more “Aristotle” than “mainstream” writing), I must acknowledge the technological limitations placed on high school classrooms for various reasons: finances, teacher education, numbers, accessibility, space, curriculum, and standardized testing. While this article is useful in arguing reasons for teaching digital writing, I don’t think that its ultimate scope of how includes primary and secondary education because so many other factors must be adjusted before that would function successfully.
Braun, C., McCorkle, B., & Wolf, A. “Remixing Basic Writing.” Computers and Composition Online. Spring 2007. Web. 12 January 2012.
Like the previous journal, this online journal this one is aimed at an audience of teachers and scholars. It is the online companion of the international print version, Computers and Composition.
Whereas the previous article looked at the justification for teaching digital writing, this article moves forward to focus on specifically how three college professors incorporated digital writing into their classrooms. The authors acknowledge increased dialogue about digital media in writing, but not necessarily with an emphasis on basic writing, which is the conversation they are generating. Essentially, the authors seeks to communicate about the impact of including digital media in basic writing courses for “typical” college freshmen, and a case study of each is included in the article. In each of the case studies, the professors valued the process students went through, and all agreed that audience and revision became more important, which resulted in student learning and growth. In Braun’s class, students had to reflect on their inclusion of rhetorical, aesthetic, and textual elements in their final product, which led to them connecting their purpose to their goals. McCorkle’s class relied on a combination of traditional and new media production, and had students collaborating on two of the three major projects for the course. In Wolf’s class, she and the students experimented with audio essays. As a conclusion, the authors felt that because teachers are always exploring new ways to engage students, digital media and writing must be explored. All found it beneficial to their students and feel that further discussions and research should be conducted in relation to basic writing.
In the end, I agree with their claim that it would be a “disservice” to deny students the opportunities provided by digital writing. However, these professors had access to recording studios, computers, and teaching assistants. McCorkle and his teaching assistant had just 15 students, and noted that much of the student growth was also related to face-time with the instructor. Again, I find the article highly interesting and mildly persuasive. And again, as a high school teacher, I wonder about the results of such an experiment in a high school setting where there are typically 30 or more students to one teacher, but I still find the overall concept useful and encouraging. In the future, I’d like to explore the impact of digital writing on high school classrooms.
http://www.bgsu.edu/cconline/braun/braun.html
So...I couldn't find a way to add these sound clips to my page, so I just listed the URL. If you visit it, you'll find three samples of audio essays that were part of the article I read. It's pretty cool how, in the rollercoaster essay for example, the sounds of the rollercoaster are layered with music and the voice of the author reading the essay. I imagine this is something most undergrads would welcome as a variation of traditional essays.
“Why teach digital writing?” Kairos. 10:1 (Fall 2005). Web. 12 January 2012.
I began with this article because it seems like a root question for a teacher. Before I can make decisions about how or what, I need to know the why. Kairos is an academic journal that publishes ‘webtexts” about the convergence of writing, computers, and teaching. Basically, it wants to examine compositions using new media, and its audience would include anyone involved in the teaching of writing at mainly an undergraduate level. This particular article could be useful in defending the teaching of digital writing because it reviews three separate occasions on which undergraduate professors successfully implemented multimodal digital writing in their classrooms. For skeptics who think it is necessary to treat writing as a process limited to pens, word processors, and paper, this article could provide a glimpse at not only the necessity of digital writing, but also the benefits reaped by students. The article is, essentially, aimed at justifying the teaching of digital writing; therefore, its findings have the potential to influence decisions made by departments, English and other, of campuses across the nation or even world.
I found the article to be highly interesting and mildly persuasive. It discussed the increased sense of audience, along with the feedback that audience gives the writer, in a digital writing environment. It also notes that ability of the writer to add video, images, or sound to his composition, and then to act as both the publisher and distributer of his text. The nature of digital writing indicated here becomes difficult to reject, considering what has traditionally been valued in composition. To further that point, the article discusses the rhetorical value of digital writing created by its dependence on not just on product, but process, distribution, research, audience, persuasion, and impact. The article indicates, and I agree, that digital writing may very well include more of the “classical rhetorical cannon than mainstream compositions do.”
Assuming that justifies the why behind teaching digital writing, then we must continue to look at the how, which the article does next when it discusses classrooms as networks where students are free to make choices about how they interact with text. The article outlines some basic pedagogical principles: situated in contexts of rich affordances for writing; rooted in a rhetoric that is technological, social, and cultural; linked to a thoughtful, critical consciousness of technology; framed by learning how to learn; and anchored by multimodal approaches to writing.
As a high school teacher, I say the article is mildly persuasive because while I agree with its suggestions (especially the one that digital writing is more “Aristotle” than “mainstream” writing), I must acknowledge the technological limitations placed on high school classrooms for various reasons: finances, teacher education, numbers, accessibility, space, curriculum, and standardized testing. While this article is useful in arguing reasons for teaching digital writing, I don’t think that its ultimate scope of how includes primary and secondary education because so many other factors must be adjusted before that would function successfully.
Braun, C., McCorkle, B., & Wolf, A. “Remixing Basic Writing.” Computers and Composition Online. Spring 2007. Web. 12 January 2012.
Like the previous journal, this online journal this one is aimed at an audience of teachers and scholars. It is the online companion of the international print version, Computers and Composition.
Whereas the previous article looked at the justification for teaching digital writing, this article moves forward to focus on specifically how three college professors incorporated digital writing into their classrooms. The authors acknowledge increased dialogue about digital media in writing, but not necessarily with an emphasis on basic writing, which is the conversation they are generating. Essentially, the authors seeks to communicate about the impact of including digital media in basic writing courses for “typical” college freshmen, and a case study of each is included in the article. In each of the case studies, the professors valued the process students went through, and all agreed that audience and revision became more important, which resulted in student learning and growth. In Braun’s class, students had to reflect on their inclusion of rhetorical, aesthetic, and textual elements in their final product, which led to them connecting their purpose to their goals. McCorkle’s class relied on a combination of traditional and new media production, and had students collaborating on two of the three major projects for the course. In Wolf’s class, she and the students experimented with audio essays. As a conclusion, the authors felt that because teachers are always exploring new ways to engage students, digital media and writing must be explored. All found it beneficial to their students and feel that further discussions and research should be conducted in relation to basic writing.
In the end, I agree with their claim that it would be a “disservice” to deny students the opportunities provided by digital writing. However, these professors had access to recording studios, computers, and teaching assistants. McCorkle and his teaching assistant had just 15 students, and noted that much of the student growth was also related to face-time with the instructor. Again, I find the article highly interesting and mildly persuasive. And again, as a high school teacher, I wonder about the results of such an experiment in a high school setting where there are typically 30 or more students to one teacher, but I still find the overall concept useful and encouraging. In the future, I’d like to explore the impact of digital writing on high school classrooms.
http://www.bgsu.edu/cconline/braun/braun.html
So...I couldn't find a way to add these sound clips to my page, so I just listed the URL. If you visit it, you'll find three samples of audio essays that were part of the article I read. It's pretty cool how, in the rollercoaster essay for example, the sounds of the rollercoaster are layered with music and the voice of the author reading the essay. I imagine this is something most undergrads would welcome as a variation of traditional essays.