Blog 12

The article by David Elias and Deborah Brown, Critical Discourse in a Student Listserv: Collaboration, Conflict, and Electronic Multivocality clarified many questions about Listservs in the classroom. I very recently became aware of Listserv's,their function and purpose in the the classroom. When I joined the Listserv for English Grad Students at Dominguez Hills I received a couple of emails that I thought were for me, instead I was shocked to discover that the emails that were coming from this Listserv were not necessarily intended for me. This was more of an open forum in which participants would receive forwarded emails and messages that are accessible to every member of this particular Listserv. Though at first I was a bit confused about the hows and why's of Listservs after speaking to my classmates and other people that are members of various Listservs I began to see the useful qualities of such a system. One quote from the reading that sums up my initial reaction to being a member of a Listserv is, "The listserv as such a system allowed for a wide variety of contributions, including many that built on and moved away from discourse that was strictly about the teaching of writing. This sort of openness can be distracting, but it can also be useful in helping students understand how the teaching of language arts (and anything else, for that matter) is embedded in social contexts and practices that are themselves objects of critical reflection."

So after some exploration through the reading and the actual emails that I received as part of the Listserv I began to see more clearly. The Elias and Brown article also touched on a recurring theme of our assigned readings, the theme of networking and how through these mediums students are able to participate and become a part of emerging literacies such as those provided by social networking sites that provide avenues for writing. The article was very honest in explaining the different ways in which the Teacher Assistants and prospective English teachers used this forum to hold meaningful discussions, vent their frustrations and network with other teachers about issues at hand. At the same time the "openness" allowed for a free flowing of ideas, concerns, praise, contructive criticism and dialogue. Elias and Brown demonstrated that Listservs are tools that can be of extreme use in the classroom.

"Teachers Begin Using Cell Phones for Class Lessons", an article that made me think...

Blog 11

The Lowe article along with the Reyman and Benson article made me think about the pros and cons of blogging and keeping web logs in the classroom. The idea that blogging is another form of literacy, "network literacy" was incredibly eye opening to me. I must say that prior to reading these articles I was completely turned off to the idea of incorporating some sort of online writing such as blogging with my own students, though the reading did not completely change my mind, (I teach 9th grade), it did make me see how beneficial it can be for a older group of students. Lowe really explained the idea that, "blogs enable key interactive features of social, networked communication, such as linking, commenting, and trackbacking." Network literacy is just another way to help develop the other literacies such as rhetoric and composition, critical thinking and argument analysis. The best definition for network literacy was, "Unlike normal conversation that is essentially private but interactive, and unlike broadcast that is inherently not interactive but public, blogging is interactive, public and, of course, networked - that is to say, interconnected." Having students write through this "interconnected network", is key as teachers of writing embrace technology and its different aspects. Blogging encompasses, conversation, reader response, analysis, feedback, and in a way the publishing of material for an audience. All of areas will help writers develop their skills, but also their ability to receive and provide positive and constructive feedback from their peers. In my classroom I feel that this is essential, especially when working in Peer Editing Groups. I feel that if my students can get into the habit of reading and sharing their writing with their peers is a productive manner, then they will be better prepared for future projects in which they may be faced with "blogging" or "web logs" as part of their curriculum.

What I appreciated best from the Reyman and Benson article was the way in which the explained how blogging or web logs place a greater sense of responsibility and ownership on the students and their writing, "for students to go public with their writing to receive feedback, on the grounds that public writing in classrooms de-emphasizes teacher authority and promotes student- writers’ abilities to see themselves as responsible writers and to view writing as a social activity." The idea that through web logs students are at the center of their own learning is amazing. Many times teachers feel that the only way to impart knowledge on students is by being the focus or at the center of most lesson plans, however by placing this sense of ownership on the students and their writing students will more likely produce well thought out, and meaningful writing.

Something so public as posting writing on the world wide web can be misconstrued as dangerous, unproductive, and not suitable for the development of students as writers, but I believe that when done correctly as a part of an English Classroom, this can be a wonderful project. Overall the research presented by the Reyman and Benson article convinced me about the benefits of incorporating writing in public forums such as blogging and web logs in the classroom.

Blog 10

Both readings for this week offered great advice on tools and resources for English Teachers. The Handa article offered an array of websites that support and enhance learning in the English classroom. Though I have not been fond of most of the visuals or images presented in this book(to me they seem to offer more confusion than clarification for whatever they are trying to explain), the figures on page 168-169 were actually beneficial to me. These worked well at the beginning of Handa's article because they defined and explained each of the terms she later discussed. The discussion of Exploratory Hypertext and Constructive Hypertext once again brought into light the whole idea of online writing vs. traditional writing and the existence of "linearity" in both. The section on web page evaluations was extremely helpful to me since I am working on a project that deals with website evaluations for a unit on Greek Mythology. I checked out a couple of the links that Handa recommends and they will be very useful to me. The Speakeasy Studio & Cafe website that Handa described in the section for Using Existing Resources really caught my attention, however after trying multiple times to access it I was unable to. After trying to figure out what happened to this website, I found out it no longer exists. :( Overall Handa's article seems to offer a lot of online resources and websites that seem to be of use to teachers, assuming that the websites still exists.

The Moran and Herringtion article also brought up a recurring theme, how to evaluate hypertext writing. At the beginning of their article they posed two questions that they set out to analyze. The questions were, "What criteria should we use when evaluating hypertexts?", and the second question was, "Is it possible to evaluate hypertext and non-hypertext using the same criteria?" pg 247-248 I really appreciate Moran and Herrington's honesty and the candid way in which they accept that they have no true answer to their second question. I really appreciate how they used criteria that applies to both traditional and hypertext. Focus and central claim, constructive thinking, organization, syntax, and degree of difficulty are all important areas for evaluation and grading student work. The brief but to the point discussion in this article about these areas will certainly help me in creating rubrics for my own students.

Blog 9

While reading Doug Brent’s article “Rhetorics of the Web: Implications for Teachers of Literacy” I became a bit frustrated and dizzy. First of all I was not entirely sure about what his real argument was, but as I continued clicking and reading through the article he read my mind. Brent stated that, “If this seems altogether too chaotic, maybe it means that hypertext just isn't a good medium for argument in the first place”. That was exactly what I was thinking! I know that when writing this he had a specific purpose and objectives that he wanted to accomplished, so I wonder if part of his goal was to make us question about how arguments may get lost when presented in hypertext form in which a reader reads differently than he or she is accustomed to. Frustrated and dizzy as I was I continued reading and clicking and found something that confirmed my suspicions when analyzing Kolb and his belief in the viability of hypertext and rhetoric he acknowledges that, “he is not convinced that hypertext is a very good medium for argument as we have come to know it, and neither am I.” I wonder if writing this article in a “nonlinear” way was Brent’s way of demonstrating his beliefs in the complexity and confusing nature of presenting a rhetorical argument in hypertext. Perhaps I am one of few that are bothered by the way in which he made his point. While I read and clicked I found myself wishing that this article was written in paper, but then I thought that this maybe was a better or the only way to write an article about rhetorics of the web.

“Even documents posted in html and broken into separate nodes often contain "next" links at the bottom of each page to encourage the reader to put them right back in linear order again, which makes one ask why they should have been broken up in the first place.”

And this quote just threw me completely off! Why compose html documents and break them apart, if in the end the reader (ME) will be tempted to arrange and read such text in a linear fashion?? I truly do believe that hypertext is different than print text. I believe that linearity is extremely important. Hypertext indeed enables the reader to be more interactive with the text and feel more ownership of what lines are read, what is clicked, ignored and re-read, but print text offers a sort of simplicity and order that hypertext fails to provide. It would be interesting to see if any research has been done regarding the existence and absence of “linearity” in different types of texts. While there may be differing opinions about what this “linearity” does to text, I believe that the fact that Brent discussed this in his article is proof enough that we cannot be quick to give preference to one over another.