CCCC | ELSE – IF

I just noticed that I never posted the slides from my talk at the 2009 Conference on College Composition and Communication. So here is a pdf version of the slides.

Here is the abstract:

Since the earliest MUDs, MOOs and networked composition classrooms of the 1990s, composition teachers and scholars have been thinking, speaking, and writing about the impact of computers and later, Internet and Communication Technologies (ICTS) on composition. By the end of the 90s, there was little question that we must address this issue (Selfe 1999). By fall 2005, the Kairos CoverWeb identified three waves of technology users; even one of their own editorial team was a member of the third wave of users new to writing in virtual spaces. More than twenty years after computers first entered both writing classrooms and the disciplinary discourse, we must ask why this third wave represents people who are not just new to a particular technology, but to using computers or ICTs in the composition class in general?

The answer is both complex and simple. On the one hand, people encounter computers and ICTs in various ways throughout their education and professional life, and some may feel they are at best a necessary evil. Further, class, gender, age and other factors may have an impact. This is the complex answer. On the other hand, a quick survey of doctoral programs in composition and rhetoric around the country reveals that even now very few offer courses addressing computers and ICTs in composition and rhetoric. Of those few programs with these courses, only a very very few require them in the degree program.

Based on a more thorough survey of graduate programs in composition and rhetoric, I present trends in course topics, readings and structures. I further compare these trends to actual disciplinary trends to reveal how closely they are linked or not. I then discuss revisions to graduate curricula to better integrate study of computers and ICTs in composition and rhetoric, and argue that training all of our future faculty in these matters is crucial to both graduate and undergraduate instruction. Finally, I argue that the future of graduate pedagogy must involve more interdisciplinary awareness, particularly of scholarship about the cultural impact of computers and ICTs, and I draw connections to developments in new and comparative media studies, internet research, and technology studies that would enrich our understanding and our teaching.

Missed the first speaker–my stupid business center could not print my slides…. 😛

2 Jennifer Buckner spoke about using Pownce in her class. She analyzed her own interactions with students and in particular the way she teetered between speaking personally and speaking as teacher. I notice again how little Comp. and and Internet Research are not talking, because so many of the questions raised have been raised and explored already–which is not to discredit what she said, but rather to wish the larger conversation were more coherent and integrated.

I also wonder if she has read earlier research on networked writing classes–must find citations for those.

3 Deanya Lattimore now presenting “How I killed the Weblog.” She uses overheads in a really clever way to introduce her talk, which has changed from when she first proposed it. She used a multi-user WordPress blog–how does one choose that? It allows students to choose there own themes, but doesn’t encourage the kind of organization I can achieve with the magzine type theme I’ve used in my classes. –hypersuasion–

problems: no outward links, only internal. No comments.

Is it true that a paper-based essay wouldn’t allow the personal tone that a student uses in the blog’s “about me” page?

Seems Deanya emphasized too much what form an essay must take–not too much hyperlinking, for example. She also thinks this focus stifled comments and prevented the “working through ideas” characteristic of many blogs. In the end, she seems to have decided that it would have been better to not try controlling what students wrote, or how they wrote it. –That jibes with most work on fostering student engagement; students will feel more invested if they have more control.

Next time–the blog as portfolio, not essay.

And let the academic essay rest in peace.

4 Todd Finley –Microblogging as prof. development. Cites Alfred Wallace–developed theory of evolution in a fever dream, at the same time as Darwin, but was just a little too slow publishing.

How we socialized each other in that space–example of how the word “fuck” in is used in the space. How this community of teachers developed–mish mash of experiences. Rather messy auto-ethnography. Anxiety is ok–related to productivity, depression is not; you’re a slug. But bragginess isn’t ok either. Also depends whether you are positioned as a novice or experienced scholar.

No one talks about sex, no talk about spouses–no outside intimacies discussed in this group. Alliances are not discussed–who is closer who is less close. Academic debates are ok, but conflicts involving emotions are not discussed. No religion. So how much trust is there really? Sadly have to leave before discussion because it runs long and I speak in the next session!

Refer him to Jonathan Marshall and Shanyang Zhao about the body breaking out, emotional intimacy and co-presence. And I wonder if the speaker had permission from the other group members to discuss this at Cs.

Again, a lot of reinvention going on–confirms what I said at MLA about how fragmented research is right now, Deanya’s talk was the best and most useful-real analysis going on there, by someone who was NOT just cutting her teeth on social software.

ELSE – IF – THEN

Notes on culture, technology, and the occasional personal item.

Tag Archives: CCCC

Slides from CCCC 2009