The [Physical] Classroom
Podcast:
This podcast focuses on the articles by Anson and by Rice. It examines the economic and social issues that arise in regard to technologically advanced classrooms and Rice's ideas about grammar, both as a technology and its instruction.
(18 votes)
Comments
Virtual Spaces in Addition to Physical Space?
Nate,
I found your examination of the 'loss' of physical interaction in “completely online environments” somewhat problematic in light of the Bemer, Moller, and Ball reading and it's inclination to suggest the spaces the students missed. While ostensibly an examination of a 'successful' collaborative space in the lab, I could not help but shake the feeling while reading that despite their nuanced analysis of the situation, they were longing for a third possibility for collaborative writing in the form of completely virtual collaborations. On 156, they note that “limited desktop space... forced participants to invade what they felt to be one another's boundaries to collaborate” however “desktop group participants were not sitting any closer to one another than the laptop participants were.” Now, while they suggest this is part of the “ideology” of the computer lab, I think a more appropriate term would be rhetoric – the strong defense style rhetoric that each space is designed with.
If we consider this, then many of the issues with comfort, collaboration, and 'credit' would likely have been solved via a Google Docs session in which all the students were in separate parts of the room (or in different rooms altogether). From some degree of personal experience (our tech tutorial group was only able to meet twice – and only for planning sessions), I can say that collaborating on a Gdoc is admittedly surreal at times – the degree to which you can permeate another's virtual body is at first frightening, but when enhanced by tools such as skype or side-chats, discomfort becomes excitement in my experience. These virtual spaces have created a rhetoric that encourages collaboration and competition – rather than a “loss of physical interaction,” I think that virtual spaces from which to learn and collaborate could be seen as a gain. In order to truly take advantage of these virtual spaces though, we need to move past what Anson aptly describes as “The Allure” of technology - “enhancement” (263). Instead of attempting to make “good” pedagogical technologies based on our perception of currently “good” pedagogical strategies (weak defense), we should rather enter each technology as a moment of using, and then determine its (spatial) worth based on its appropriateness for any given situation (strong defense or Kelly's 'naturally selective' technium). Essentially, based on a technology's merit or appropriateness for our goal, we should add it to the curriculum, but not simply to keep 'relevant' or as an 'alternative'. The technology should accomplish its pedagogical goal better than any 'physical' analog and in reality should be expanding our pedagogical options instead of 'enhancing' a current strategy. As an example: if we were to build some project around twitter (say liveblogging a film) it would need to be appropriate for the assignment and graded with an appreciation for the rhetoric twitter has built in (inherent shortening of words, etc).
There was originally far more here, but I'm trying to be a bit shorter in my comments. :-) However, your podcast was really great - it really got me thinking about the possibilities that rhetorical spaces both within and without the classroom provide.
Teachers, Technology and the future of the writing classroom
Nate, Good job on your podcast. You raise some interesting points about the purpose and methods of teaching in a world in which technology has changed the way teachers and students interact. I think the entire education system is in a state of flux right now, a paradigm shift, if you will. No longer are students being prepared for the world that we grew up in if you were born before 1995. Now much is being made about what skills the people in elementary and high school will need in the 21st century. Mainly I think those skills, while they do involve written communication skills, which include the standards of written English, they also require much more collaborative, interpretive and global thinking then ever before. I must admit I, too, worry about teaching the use of the comma and the semi-colon to students who barely use full sentences in the majority of written communications with their peers. Clear, concise, effective writing is more important than ever as more and more of the jobs available are technology and web-based. What will that communication look like? My only consolation is that in the future, writing in the classroom may look a lot more like the writing that goes on in social media, through text messages, and who knows what else, because that is the kind of writing that they will need in their online world. As one of my Georgetown colleagues said in a discussion recently, he'd like to throw out Strunk and White. I think that isn't so far fetched an idea.
thanx
Thanks for your comment. I too, as my podcast showed, worry about what's to come in regard to English education and technology. One of my fears going into teaching in our current time is the fact that the students will almost surely know more about the technologies we are using than I will. this is especially true since I am slow to accept new tech and utilize it in my everyday life. But it seems the onus of adjusting to new technological advancements in the classroom will fall on us, the instructors, to seek training and education to make functioning use of these new media.
Maybe it really is "Social" Media
Hi, Ntty4
I'd like to spend the first half of this comment talking about content and the second about the mechanics of your podcast:
I found your discussion about grammar and technology to be very engaging. In fact, I think there's a way in which we might synthesize all of the points you made further; the more I listened to your podcast, the more connections I began to see.
The two anxieties you mention from the readings--losing "traditional" social skills and using incorrect grammar-- might not only be non-issues, but technology might actually offer a way of combating them. As you mention, Rice states that "writers have more options than ever to consider their rhetorical situation." I think that one of the most major players in those factors is writing for a new audience--a wider audience. Without the physical presence of the student (i.e. non-physical space of the classroom) it becomes all the more important that one writes clearly and precisely which makes effective grammar even more necessary. (I use the word "effective" here, over "correct" intentionally). I think the anxiety of writing for more than just "the teacher"raises the stakes of any online writing. So, what we see is less a loss of social interaction, than merely a new kind of social interaction:one with heightened rhetorical awareness. I keep thinking about this course in particular--we each read one another's comments and in doing so, a standard is created in how one should write and how one shouldn't. Instead of teacher comments, there's a type of self-correction that occurs here (Healthy competition? Perhaps. Or perhaps it's more like collaborative learning). This all goes back to the idea of teaching grammar through doing--teaching it along the way in order to increase rhetorical clarity--that through abstract exercises and isolated courses. So, the social dimension of the classroom--while "changed"--is still there, perhaps even more crucially than before.
As far as your podcast goes, I thought you were extremely fluid and clear in your response to the essays. I also loved the opening music. One aspect I found slightly distracting was the music loop. Your argument was so engaging that I, at times, wished the music wasn't there, because it seemed to overpower your voice. Overall though, the amount of time you dedicated to the two sections of your discussion--grammar and technology--was terrific and very well executed.
Cheers,
Allison