Ok, I can begin this post by agreeing that this article is pretty old-copyright 1998, and there are many parts that are so outdated one can only be amused. For example, Grabe writes about educational access and uses the Clinton Administration to reference the commitment to connect schools to the internet. Grabe even writes of Gore's vision in 1994 for a "different kind of superhighway that can...give every American, young and old, the chance for the best education available to anyone,anywhere."(p.190) Does this reinforce Gore's belief that he created the Internet?
Despite the "old news" about technology in this article, Grabe discusses some of the exact ideas and principals we've been reading in K&L and Kajder. Grabe's "internet resources" segment repeats similar strategies featuring the different types of tools available, email activities, how teachers structure projects to engage students, and how to find "course-relevant"resources on the internet. However, Grabe goes into so much technical detail that he loses me. It reminds me of my television and how it's connected to digital cable, a dvd player, and surround sound but I don't want or need to know how. I just want to be able to turn my tv on with the remote and watch a movie if I want to without knowing which cable and USB connections were needed, etc.... Just reading Grabe's description of the process of transferring files using FTP (file transfer protocol) and the UNIX operating system makes me wonder how obsolete this information is.
Ok, now that I told you what I didn't like, this is what I did: I liked how Grabe s-p-e-l-l-e-d everything out from "browsers" and "home pages" to differentiating links. When reading newer, more up to date texts, some writers assume everyone knows exactly what they are talking about and neglect to define or identify parts. No one can accuse Grabe of doing that because he/she defines everything. On page 209, for example, Grabe goes into graphic detail about web browsers and hypertext mark up language (HTML), helper applications and plug-ins. Again, this information may be so outdated but I found is useful to understand how a webpage was created because I had no clue.
When talking about "searching the web", I found Grabe's description of search engines being fed by "robots" continually roaming the internet and "web librarians" who examine web documents kind of silly.(p210) I imagined little robots and tiny librarians inside everyone's computers running around trying to keep everything functioning properly. But, I liked his breakdown of search engines descriptions; meta-index, concept, index searches, and personal indexes because he goes into detail the different strategies of the different search engines and explains how they produce different results. (p.211) But "Google" is never mentioned, which like Jason said, is the "big Daddy" of search engines, so it does question the information being relevant to today.
Once again, the "boolean" search strategy is mentioned, as in K&L, but Grabe tells of its origins in "Boolean logic in high school math class"(p.214) and goes into a whole page description of how to use boolean operators to refine your search, unlike the newer texts who mention it in one or two sentences. By the time I was done reading, I felt like an expert on Boolean operators. I also learned that typing in lower case letters for a search will find BOTH upper and lower case matches, but using upper case letters will produce only uppercase matches.
One last thing that I found useful and need to keep on file is how to cite internet sources. (p.220) I had a professor last year who had to look up the "proper" way to cite a website so I think including this information in the article is still very beneficial and useful even nine years later. So, even though the majority of the text is pretty outdated, I think there is still some beneficial information included that helps those of us likely to be called, "digital immigrants" to better understand the natives way of thinking.
Course homepage
Course homepage
Saturday, 23 June 2007
Friday, 22 June 2007
This posting contains part of a comment to this week's initial posting (by Lucien). Since mine is the last comment to Lucien’s posting (so far), now two pages back, I think it might not get read. In addition, as I have read more texts, I have continued to think about this topic and have expanded quite a bit on my original comment, so that I think it can be its own posting. In fact, I believe my concern touches upon one of the questions Ellie posed for this week's topics: What are critical areas of consideration for a teacher concerned about students' web-focused information literacy and what would you add to the conversation created by the readings?
Lucien (as I think all of us do) praises the internet as a research medium for its convenience, “when approached critically.” That phrase toward the end stuck with me because I think the critical reading is the most difficult aspect of teaching all reading, and that it takes on additional challenges in the teaching of hypertext literacy. As much as, and perhaps more than, with the technical aspects (how to find things and the quality of what we find), I am concerned with how to teach critical reading once we have done all the necessary prep and filter work of making sure the sites and information are reputable and accurate.
Kinzer and Leander cite research (Bolter, 1991) which “claims that the inherent ‘linked’ nature of hypertext leads to critical engagement.” (552) This position, therefore, concludes that “hypermedia must be strongly articulated with critical pedagogy.” (552) Of course, in the sense that "must" can mean "should" this is indisputable. However, Bolter's claim seems also to convey the belief that “reading” hypermedia IS necessarily reading critically, that "[it] leads to critical engagement." I strongly disagree. Although Kinzer and Leander don’t seem to critique this claim in the same section where it is quoted, the entire purpose of their chapter is to make the case for an expansion of the definition of literacy and for the explicit inclusion and provision for hypermedia literacy in English curricula (which I take them to mean critical reading, not just critical research). By “reading critically,” I refer to the ability to read “dialogically”—to identify different ideas and positions within a text (either stated or omitted), compare them, make them dialogue with each other, come up with one’s own thoughts and try these out by entering into dialogue with the text. I am sure that my own ability to do so in a hypertext is limited, although I have some clues because of training with print text...what about the students we teach?
Once we have applied a lot of the research and site evaluation techniques Kajder recommends in Chapter 5 (and I believe these, or their equivalent, to be essential to teaching students an expanded literacy), and we've come up with "reliable" sites/sources, how do we teach students to read these critically? Let me explain why I insist on this: when we do research for a paper in grad school, we tend to use sources such as peer-review journals and books. Nevertheless, good writing goes beyond our choice of sources—it has to do with the dialogical nature of our reading and the resulting dialectical text we put together (that's what sets it apart from a "report"). Thus, the reputable, accurate sources (in this case the sites) are only the beginning of critical literacy: this applies to hypertext as much as traditional print. However, as all the authors we are reading this week indicate, that critical reading takes on added dimension in hypertext. This critical literacy does not come with the dialectical nature of the text. If it did, putting students in contact with good sources would do the job. But, in contrast with the implications of Bolter's statement, "exposure [to an intrinsically dialectical hypertext] does not necessarily result in depth of thought...It also does not guarantee the mental activity necessary to construct personal meaning." (Grabe and Grabe 214-215)
After quoting Bolter, K & L go on to discuss issues of authorship, credibility, power-relations within one site/text, and understanding “a site’s positioning with respect to other sites.” (558) The way in which all of these elements present (or hide) themselves in hypertext is different from how they can be represented in print text. The skills with which to interpret, unfold, and consider the positions in hypertext in relation to one another--the "depth of thought" and "mental activity necessary to construct personal meaning" Grabe and Grabe speak of--are essential to students’ ability to read (and write) critically and they, contrary to Bolter’s claim, do not come hand-in-hand with the hypermedia text; on the contrary, the issues K & L discuss need to be made explicit, brought to the forefront, and analyzed.
I think Kajder’s point at the beginning of Chapter 5 that teachers can make NO assumptions about students’ knowledge of the internet is worth reiterating: "Just because our students are able to cruise the Internet with speed and what looks like skill doesn't mean they know what they are doing." (49) Although all of this might seem self-evident, I can't help but be concerned that the "dialectical nature" of hypertexts (the fact that they appear to have the "dialogue" built into their format--through links, different types of image and text, etc.) might lead readers (and I am willing to take the blame for grouping teachers in with the students here) to believe, as Bolter affirms, that the linked nature of hypertexts "leads" to dialectical, critical, reading. This is an issue that I believe needs to be included in the new curricula we are discussing as well.
Lucien (as I think all of us do) praises the internet as a research medium for its convenience, “when approached critically.” That phrase toward the end stuck with me because I think the critical reading is the most difficult aspect of teaching all reading, and that it takes on additional challenges in the teaching of hypertext literacy. As much as, and perhaps more than, with the technical aspects (how to find things and the quality of what we find), I am concerned with how to teach critical reading once we have done all the necessary prep and filter work of making sure the sites and information are reputable and accurate.
Kinzer and Leander cite research (Bolter, 1991) which “claims that the inherent ‘linked’ nature of hypertext leads to critical engagement.” (552) This position, therefore, concludes that “hypermedia must be strongly articulated with critical pedagogy.” (552) Of course, in the sense that "must" can mean "should" this is indisputable. However, Bolter's claim seems also to convey the belief that “reading” hypermedia IS necessarily reading critically, that "[it] leads to critical engagement." I strongly disagree. Although Kinzer and Leander don’t seem to critique this claim in the same section where it is quoted, the entire purpose of their chapter is to make the case for an expansion of the definition of literacy and for the explicit inclusion and provision for hypermedia literacy in English curricula (which I take them to mean critical reading, not just critical research). By “reading critically,” I refer to the ability to read “dialogically”—to identify different ideas and positions within a text (either stated or omitted), compare them, make them dialogue with each other, come up with one’s own thoughts and try these out by entering into dialogue with the text. I am sure that my own ability to do so in a hypertext is limited, although I have some clues because of training with print text...what about the students we teach?
Once we have applied a lot of the research and site evaluation techniques Kajder recommends in Chapter 5 (and I believe these, or their equivalent, to be essential to teaching students an expanded literacy), and we've come up with "reliable" sites/sources, how do we teach students to read these critically? Let me explain why I insist on this: when we do research for a paper in grad school, we tend to use sources such as peer-review journals and books. Nevertheless, good writing goes beyond our choice of sources—it has to do with the dialogical nature of our reading and the resulting dialectical text we put together (that's what sets it apart from a "report"). Thus, the reputable, accurate sources (in this case the sites) are only the beginning of critical literacy: this applies to hypertext as much as traditional print. However, as all the authors we are reading this week indicate, that critical reading takes on added dimension in hypertext. This critical literacy does not come with the dialectical nature of the text. If it did, putting students in contact with good sources would do the job. But, in contrast with the implications of Bolter's statement, "exposure [to an intrinsically dialectical hypertext] does not necessarily result in depth of thought...It also does not guarantee the mental activity necessary to construct personal meaning." (Grabe and Grabe 214-215)
After quoting Bolter, K & L go on to discuss issues of authorship, credibility, power-relations within one site/text, and understanding “a site’s positioning with respect to other sites.” (558) The way in which all of these elements present (or hide) themselves in hypertext is different from how they can be represented in print text. The skills with which to interpret, unfold, and consider the positions in hypertext in relation to one another--the "depth of thought" and "mental activity necessary to construct personal meaning" Grabe and Grabe speak of--are essential to students’ ability to read (and write) critically and they, contrary to Bolter’s claim, do not come hand-in-hand with the hypermedia text; on the contrary, the issues K & L discuss need to be made explicit, brought to the forefront, and analyzed.
I think Kajder’s point at the beginning of Chapter 5 that teachers can make NO assumptions about students’ knowledge of the internet is worth reiterating: "Just because our students are able to cruise the Internet with speed and what looks like skill doesn't mean they know what they are doing." (49) Although all of this might seem self-evident, I can't help but be concerned that the "dialectical nature" of hypertexts (the fact that they appear to have the "dialogue" built into their format--through links, different types of image and text, etc.) might lead readers (and I am willing to take the blame for grouping teachers in with the students here) to believe, as Bolter affirms, that the linked nature of hypertexts "leads" to dialectical, critical, reading. This is an issue that I believe needs to be included in the new curricula we are discussing as well.
Again, I feel inadequate...
I swear, every time I read a chapter from Kajder, I feel like the worst teacher in the world! Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the book because I think I am learning a lot from it, but at the same time I feel as though I am the example of what-not-to-do! I can pretty much point-for-point say that I do the opposite of what she says a teacher should do!
Example 1: Assessing What the Students Already Know
Kajder suggests that we should ask students about their internet history and provide them with an opportunity to assess their understanding of the internet (via a quiz, journal prompt etc.). I do neither of those...it's pretty much just a "Sign on and go!" type of thing in my classroom. Okay, so that is one thing to add to my "Things to Work On" list.
Example 2: Searching Strategies
Kajder mentioned Boolean operators in chapter 7, and I had no idea what they were, so I flipped back to chapter 5 to skim about them, since she mentioned referring to chapter 5. I thought it would be some huge complicated thing, but when I saw that they were words like "and" "or" and "not," I relaxed-- I use those all the time! Yeah...reading chapter 5 made me realize they aren't just simple words, and apparently since I don't capitalize them, I have been doing it wrong all these years!!! And I definitely don't teach my students how to narrow down and filter the information so that it is the most specific and relevant. In addition, I had no idea about things like using the "+" or "-" or "title:_____" to find information-- I just typed in words. So another thing to add to my list-- how to effectively search the internet. Shoot, I thought I already knew that one!
Example 3: Meta-Searches and the Deep Web
I didn't know these existed...I thought the internet was the internet. I had heard of GaleNet before, but I didn't know it accessed all this information that Google didn't. And the deep web sounds like it probably has a ton of great information! That's three "To-Dos" from this chapter alone...
Example 4: Evaluating What You Find
I know I can tell when a source is no good, but I am pretty sure my students have no clue. I think I might try to use the rubric in her appendix with my students next year to help them decide whether a source is good or not. That's 4...
At least I can say that I am pretty good at catching plagiarism in my classroom. Things like "double entendre" have made their way into student writing, and it makes it pretty easy to catch the cheaters. But I am obviously a hugely massive Work In Progress.
Example 1: Assessing What the Students Already Know
Kajder suggests that we should ask students about their internet history and provide them with an opportunity to assess their understanding of the internet (via a quiz, journal prompt etc.). I do neither of those...it's pretty much just a "Sign on and go!" type of thing in my classroom. Okay, so that is one thing to add to my "Things to Work On" list.
Example 2: Searching Strategies
Kajder mentioned Boolean operators in chapter 7, and I had no idea what they were, so I flipped back to chapter 5 to skim about them, since she mentioned referring to chapter 5. I thought it would be some huge complicated thing, but when I saw that they were words like "and" "or" and "not," I relaxed-- I use those all the time! Yeah...reading chapter 5 made me realize they aren't just simple words, and apparently since I don't capitalize them, I have been doing it wrong all these years!!! And I definitely don't teach my students how to narrow down and filter the information so that it is the most specific and relevant. In addition, I had no idea about things like using the "+" or "-" or "title:_____" to find information-- I just typed in words. So another thing to add to my list-- how to effectively search the internet. Shoot, I thought I already knew that one!
Example 3: Meta-Searches and the Deep Web
I didn't know these existed...I thought the internet was the internet. I had heard of GaleNet before, but I didn't know it accessed all this information that Google didn't. And the deep web sounds like it probably has a ton of great information! That's three "To-Dos" from this chapter alone...
Example 4: Evaluating What You Find
I know I can tell when a source is no good, but I am pretty sure my students have no clue. I think I might try to use the rubric in her appendix with my students next year to help them decide whether a source is good or not. That's 4...
At least I can say that I am pretty good at catching plagiarism in my classroom. Things like "double entendre" have made their way into student writing, and it makes it pretty easy to catch the cheaters. But I am obviously a hugely massive Work In Progress.
Response to Chapter 5
I agree with much of what Kajder says in Chapter 5. The internet became mainstream when I was in college, so my high school experience was certainly lacking in technology. As a teacher, I assume my students are much more internet savy than I am. However, Kajder brings up the fact that the web is massive, and although students use it in their daily lives, they don't necessarily have the proper tools. I know that when I assign a research project, the kids automatically head for Google or Wikipedia (a site I have banned from my classroom). It is wrong to assume that students know how to effectively access information on the web. I like the fact that Kajder gives her students an Internet Quiz. Up to this point I have not done that, but I think this is something I will begin to implement. I also like the class activity she conducts where the class decides upon a keyword, searches, and compares their findings.
As Kajder says, "As English teachers, we never expect students to select a book and work their minds through it without first preparing them with strategies, expectations, and tools for inpacking what they might find
As Kajder says, "As English teachers, we never expect students to select a book and work their minds through it without first preparing them with strategies, expectations, and tools for inpacking what they might find
Week 4: In Defense of Kinzer and Leander...
I am starting this post with a bit of a disagreement with Dan’s complaint about the datedness of the Kinzer and Leander chapter. (Dan, it just helps me get started to consider a text in regards to another’s thoughts.) I take the point that some of the data K & L site translates into widely known concepts—like the fact that true and usable accessibility to the internet is subject to the same inequities that exist in the socio-economic tiers in our society. I also agree that the case study of Tara seems a bit oversimplified (and, yet, I could not easily follow the search steps narrated in the scenario). Nevertheless, there is an important point to the K & L chapter, which I really do think is quite relevant today: the call for renovated, updated, expanded, revolutionized (?) literacy curricula (to go with a new definition of literacy)—curricula which include the hypertext literacy.
In my limited experience working in a public high school where I have repeatedly been told what is included in the English curricula (I have not used it myself) and having attended undergraduate and graduate studies focusing on English and literacy for the past seven years, I have not seen any significant incorporation of hypermedia literacy—neither how to read/interpret sites/texts, nor how to teach their interpretation. Rather, my understanding of the elements outside of the main, explicit “text” on a website—the obscurity of authorship and sponsorship, the overt and covert interests represented on a web page, the possible added meanings revealed in the choice of links, and others—all of my own understanding stems from my studies of traditional printed text. As a graduate student of English, I should hope that I can transfer some of my knowledge to a “different” type of text. However, whether the teachers themselves are capable of this or not, the curricula certainly does not seem to include it—and at least four years have passed since the publication of this chapter. Furthermore, there are many things which Kinzer and Leander mention, for which I, personally, have no training, nor any idea what to do with: “What does page color, image color, and font color signify, and when does it signify?” (557)
I think another important point raised by K & L is the need to think of the goals teachers have for their students’ use of hypermedia: “educators’ goals may well include the ‘mining’ and ‘retention’ of resources, but they also want children to share, manipulate, play with, imitate, critique, oppose, and become increasingly curious about resources that they encounter.” (557) Given that there is no way out of including hypertext literacy, it will have to be taught (because I really don’t think it is yet) in schools, how do we make sure that it doesn’t just become a source for research, in the sense of information scouring? How do we ensure that such a readily available overload of information does not take the place of students learning to “ develop their own categories, relationships, and understandings?” (557)
Again, I understand that K & L’s text is necessarily dated because of the nature of the unbelievably fast growth and change of the internet. I am also aware of the fact that students (and many teachers) are very comfortable and quick with hypermedia. However, that does not translate into informed and critical use. I really have not seen around me evidence that Kinzer and Leander’s call for a redefinition of literacy and English curricula is any less relevant now than it was four our five years ago.
In my limited experience working in a public high school where I have repeatedly been told what is included in the English curricula (I have not used it myself) and having attended undergraduate and graduate studies focusing on English and literacy for the past seven years, I have not seen any significant incorporation of hypermedia literacy—neither how to read/interpret sites/texts, nor how to teach their interpretation. Rather, my understanding of the elements outside of the main, explicit “text” on a website—the obscurity of authorship and sponsorship, the overt and covert interests represented on a web page, the possible added meanings revealed in the choice of links, and others—all of my own understanding stems from my studies of traditional printed text. As a graduate student of English, I should hope that I can transfer some of my knowledge to a “different” type of text. However, whether the teachers themselves are capable of this or not, the curricula certainly does not seem to include it—and at least four years have passed since the publication of this chapter. Furthermore, there are many things which Kinzer and Leander mention, for which I, personally, have no training, nor any idea what to do with: “What does page color, image color, and font color signify, and when does it signify?” (557)
I think another important point raised by K & L is the need to think of the goals teachers have for their students’ use of hypermedia: “educators’ goals may well include the ‘mining’ and ‘retention’ of resources, but they also want children to share, manipulate, play with, imitate, critique, oppose, and become increasingly curious about resources that they encounter.” (557) Given that there is no way out of including hypertext literacy, it will have to be taught (because I really don’t think it is yet) in schools, how do we make sure that it doesn’t just become a source for research, in the sense of information scouring? How do we ensure that such a readily available overload of information does not take the place of students learning to “ develop their own categories, relationships, and understandings?” (557)
Again, I understand that K & L’s text is necessarily dated because of the nature of the unbelievably fast growth and change of the internet. I am also aware of the fact that students (and many teachers) are very comfortable and quick with hypermedia. However, that does not translate into informed and critical use. I really have not seen around me evidence that Kinzer and Leander’s call for a redefinition of literacy and English curricula is any less relevant now than it was four our five years ago.
Thursday, 21 June 2007
Week 4: McEneaney
Well, the first thing I have to be up front about with this article is that I was totally overwhelmed as I began reading it! It took me up until about the 5th page before I really understood what was going on!
McEaney states that "The objective of this article is to describe (and, in one version, to illustrate by example) how new web technologies can be applied to assist readers both in integrating content and in maintaining a process focus as they navigate complex expository text. The central concept behind the approach described is that of the learner's “path.” I enjoyed the way he literally put you on a "path" to illustrate the use of them. I found each page to be very clear and focused, which is important when you are talking about assisting students with new web technologies.
I also found it interesting to then go back and use the "traditional hypertext" to look at the same reading in a more typical form. After first feeling frustrated with the path, I realized that I preferred it to the traditional text. As McEneaney stated, when you don't have to focus on choosing where to go on the internet, comprehension becomes much easier! I enjoyed that "path" clearly guided me to what was next.
I also found that the "notes" for each page were helpful. This feature would be fantastic to use if you were discussing a novel in a class. "Sidenotes" are great ways to help clarify information for students and to add ideas to generate new discussions. Again, I must admit that at first I was a little hesitant and confused about the path and the notes, but once you get into the swing of it, it really is quite simple!
What I liked the most about this article, however, was that McEneaney seemed to look deeply into the pros and cons of web related learning. I appreciated his honesty about the internet having some downfalls. The ones that I particularly related to were problems with 1. access to the web, 2. locating relevant and quality material, and 3. lack of structure on the web.
Access to the Web: I always worry about integrating technology into my class because of the rather high number of students who do not have it. However, I was surprised to see that this was not what McEneaney was referring to at all. He feels that there is too much "overaccessibility", where it is too easy for students to move around the internet and lose focus. I can absolutely see that as a major problem......let's be honest, I am guilty of it myself!
Locating Relevant and Quality Material: We all know, as discussed in class on Tuesday, that students will read anything and believe anything, as along as it gives them some type of answer they think they are looking for!
Lack of Structure: Again, lets be honest, this lack of structure, with the overaccessibiltiy factor, can make using the web a MAJOR TIME CONSUMER.....and it is not always time well spent! I can only imagine how much work it must take to keep students on task and focused when they know they have access to so much that they want to explore (that has nothing to do with your class!)
In the end, I do feel that McEneaney believes that the use of the web to help students outweighs the "cons" of the internet. Allowing students to be interactive as they learn can only help them in the long run.
McEaney states that "The objective of this article is to describe (and, in one version, to illustrate by example) how new web technologies can be applied to assist readers both in integrating content and in maintaining a process focus as they navigate complex expository text. The central concept behind the approach described is that of the learner's “path.” I enjoyed the way he literally put you on a "path" to illustrate the use of them. I found each page to be very clear and focused, which is important when you are talking about assisting students with new web technologies.
I also found it interesting to then go back and use the "traditional hypertext" to look at the same reading in a more typical form. After first feeling frustrated with the path, I realized that I preferred it to the traditional text. As McEneaney stated, when you don't have to focus on choosing where to go on the internet, comprehension becomes much easier! I enjoyed that "path" clearly guided me to what was next.
I also found that the "notes" for each page were helpful. This feature would be fantastic to use if you were discussing a novel in a class. "Sidenotes" are great ways to help clarify information for students and to add ideas to generate new discussions. Again, I must admit that at first I was a little hesitant and confused about the path and the notes, but once you get into the swing of it, it really is quite simple!
What I liked the most about this article, however, was that McEneaney seemed to look deeply into the pros and cons of web related learning. I appreciated his honesty about the internet having some downfalls. The ones that I particularly related to were problems with 1. access to the web, 2. locating relevant and quality material, and 3. lack of structure on the web.
Access to the Web: I always worry about integrating technology into my class because of the rather high number of students who do not have it. However, I was surprised to see that this was not what McEneaney was referring to at all. He feels that there is too much "overaccessibility", where it is too easy for students to move around the internet and lose focus. I can absolutely see that as a major problem......let's be honest, I am guilty of it myself!
Locating Relevant and Quality Material: We all know, as discussed in class on Tuesday, that students will read anything and believe anything, as along as it gives them some type of answer they think they are looking for!
Lack of Structure: Again, lets be honest, this lack of structure, with the overaccessibiltiy factor, can make using the web a MAJOR TIME CONSUMER.....and it is not always time well spent! I can only imagine how much work it must take to keep students on task and focused when they know they have access to so much that they want to explore (that has nothing to do with your class!)
In the end, I do feel that McEneaney believes that the use of the web to help students outweighs the "cons" of the internet. Allowing students to be interactive as they learn can only help them in the long run.
Week 4, Kinzer and Leander
As Lucien points out in his piece, there is some issue of dating in this article. I think that is the bane of research in matters of technology; it moves too fast for the research to be any good on it. One example that stands out a bit, even though it is from earlier in the article, is the bit about how much $500 dollars can get you: “As we write this, $500 will purchase a package including a 750 megahertz computer with a monitor, a CD-ROM drive, a 57k modem, a 60 megabyte hard drive and a basic printer” (Kinzer and Leander, 547). Given that this was written in 2003, I really hope that information is wrong, or that there is a type, at least with the hard drive size. Anyway, $500 dollars can get you a lot more than that.
The example with Tara is also rather interesting. For the sake of the article, they assume a student who has no idea about how to surf the web, and at least as far as the students I have worked with, even the ones without a computer at home, they are all much more advanced than she is – and again, you wonder about the dating and the resources the school has. Lots of school libraries have databases that the students could use, as well as normal web pages. Still, this was a rather hard working, inquisitive student – if only all of them were like her. She even felt guilty about being on a web page that would help her with her research! In this section they also mention the plagiarism problem, but like Lucien says, I also feel rather comfortable catching online plagiarism; a little googling of a phrase here and there and you can usually catch it. (On a side note, my previous school used Turn-it-in and I actually rather liked it. I had my students turn in their receipt with the paper. It seemed to be a very useful tool.)
So, the steps Tara has to take on her project that K&L discuss:
Information searching: K&L bring up several questions: “How might students be guided at the outset of a search?” (556) and offer some advice. They say that “often, students are not taught that the web employs two types of tools:...an information index ...[and] a search engine.” These two devices are very different, and provide different resources. The former is “an information index made up of lists of subjects with each subject divided into subcategories containing lists of web sites with their abstracts and addresses.” The results from search engines “return only sites that are relevant.” K&L do not provide any answers, but only suggest certain areas need to be researched: “In teaching students processes of searching, how can the goals of searching to facilitate true inquiry be left intact? How might some degree of scaffolding or oversimplification of processed for the sake of learning be achieved while nurturing students' desires to inquire about the world around them? (557).
Multimedia interpretation: In this section, they again bring up questions that need to be addressed: What should Tara do with the film clip? How should she interpret the picture with the text? What form of interpretation is most meaningful? What do you do with the different methods of navigation? Etc (557). Again, these are all good questions to ask, but also again I feel like they are rather rudimentary, and that at least for myself, most of my students are all set in these regards. If this were being written before any research at all is being done, then these are appropriate questions to ask, but in 2003?
Information evaluation: This part seems to be rather important as K&L talk about how to evaluate information. They say that “a significant amount of work on curriculum and pedagogy needs to be done to translate these preliminary resources into effective educational practice” (557), and this certainly makes sense – is the information accurate? Is really the bottom line question here, and how can we teach students to evaluate it. These methods exist in libraries and classrooms, but by the time students are there, they have probably already figured out their own means of assessment, and they could be wrong. How can we correct them? There is so much out there written by just about anybody who wants to and we have to teach students to separate fact from fiction from bias, etc. Kajder discusses this in her chapter.
Assessment of literacy in hypermedia environments: How do you assess students? Should Tara's reading of that one page be compared to another student's reading of the same page? New rubrics need to be created, argue K&L, and again I think this is a rather straight forward point. Any time there is a new assignment, or a new medium for an assignment, or anything new, for that matter, you need a new rubric. Rubrics are not static and should be constantly evolving anyway.
K&L have a discussion about the availability of computers and online access, and they break it down across economic levels, and at this point I think most of us are aware that some people in certain demographics are less likely to be online.
Overall, I think K&L do a decent job raising questions that we as teachers need to think about, but their article is strangely too dated - it almost felt like a mid 90's article, not something written in 2003 – to really provide us with something profound to think about. (I'm assuming it is from 2003 because that is the copyright date, is that wrong?) I'm not really left with any questions because I am not entirely sure I learned anything from this: should we be inquisitive about this information, as they suggest? I think the answer is an obvious yes, and that, at least for us, because we are already in this class, we already were inquisitive. They call for research on this information, and again, that should obviously be done; I would hate to be teaching, or using a teaching tool, that no one had researched the benefits, or lack there of, of. Should we be aware that students have different backgrounds and availability? I think, again, that we all have already addressed those differences that students have. Regardless of the medium, a good teacher is going to be cognizant of and act on those differences.
The example with Tara is also rather interesting. For the sake of the article, they assume a student who has no idea about how to surf the web, and at least as far as the students I have worked with, even the ones without a computer at home, they are all much more advanced than she is – and again, you wonder about the dating and the resources the school has. Lots of school libraries have databases that the students could use, as well as normal web pages. Still, this was a rather hard working, inquisitive student – if only all of them were like her. She even felt guilty about being on a web page that would help her with her research! In this section they also mention the plagiarism problem, but like Lucien says, I also feel rather comfortable catching online plagiarism; a little googling of a phrase here and there and you can usually catch it. (On a side note, my previous school used Turn-it-in and I actually rather liked it. I had my students turn in their receipt with the paper. It seemed to be a very useful tool.)
So, the steps Tara has to take on her project that K&L discuss:
Information searching: K&L bring up several questions: “How might students be guided at the outset of a search?” (556) and offer some advice. They say that “often, students are not taught that the web employs two types of tools:...an information index ...[and] a search engine.” These two devices are very different, and provide different resources. The former is “an information index made up of lists of subjects with each subject divided into subcategories containing lists of web sites with their abstracts and addresses.” The results from search engines “return only sites that are relevant.” K&L do not provide any answers, but only suggest certain areas need to be researched: “In teaching students processes of searching, how can the goals of searching to facilitate true inquiry be left intact? How might some degree of scaffolding or oversimplification of processed for the sake of learning be achieved while nurturing students' desires to inquire about the world around them? (557).
Multimedia interpretation: In this section, they again bring up questions that need to be addressed: What should Tara do with the film clip? How should she interpret the picture with the text? What form of interpretation is most meaningful? What do you do with the different methods of navigation? Etc (557). Again, these are all good questions to ask, but also again I feel like they are rather rudimentary, and that at least for myself, most of my students are all set in these regards. If this were being written before any research at all is being done, then these are appropriate questions to ask, but in 2003?
Information evaluation: This part seems to be rather important as K&L talk about how to evaluate information. They say that “a significant amount of work on curriculum and pedagogy needs to be done to translate these preliminary resources into effective educational practice” (557), and this certainly makes sense – is the information accurate? Is really the bottom line question here, and how can we teach students to evaluate it. These methods exist in libraries and classrooms, but by the time students are there, they have probably already figured out their own means of assessment, and they could be wrong. How can we correct them? There is so much out there written by just about anybody who wants to and we have to teach students to separate fact from fiction from bias, etc. Kajder discusses this in her chapter.
Assessment of literacy in hypermedia environments: How do you assess students? Should Tara's reading of that one page be compared to another student's reading of the same page? New rubrics need to be created, argue K&L, and again I think this is a rather straight forward point. Any time there is a new assignment, or a new medium for an assignment, or anything new, for that matter, you need a new rubric. Rubrics are not static and should be constantly evolving anyway.
K&L have a discussion about the availability of computers and online access, and they break it down across economic levels, and at this point I think most of us are aware that some people in certain demographics are less likely to be online.
Overall, I think K&L do a decent job raising questions that we as teachers need to think about, but their article is strangely too dated - it almost felt like a mid 90's article, not something written in 2003 – to really provide us with something profound to think about. (I'm assuming it is from 2003 because that is the copyright date, is that wrong?) I'm not really left with any questions because I am not entirely sure I learned anything from this: should we be inquisitive about this information, as they suggest? I think the answer is an obvious yes, and that, at least for us, because we are already in this class, we already were inquisitive. They call for research on this information, and again, that should obviously be done; I would hate to be teaching, or using a teaching tool, that no one had researched the benefits, or lack there of, of. Should we be aware that students have different backgrounds and availability? I think, again, that we all have already addressed those differences that students have. Regardless of the medium, a good teacher is going to be cognizant of and act on those differences.
Wednesday, 20 June 2007
Week 4, Kajder, Chapter 5 on Information Literacy
Kajder stresses the importance of teaching strategies for finding, understanding, and dealing with the overwhelming amount of information – some accurate, much that is not – at students’ fingertips, via the Internet. She tells us she learned this, “the hard way” and shares a story about a shy girl in her eight grade class that opened a porn site by typing titanic.com into the browser. “I lost Carrie that day,” she writes, “Her confidence and willingness to share aloud in class was shattered by her embarrassment (pg. 49).” The story is cautionary and well taken. However, students are resilient, and my guess is that the rest of Carrie’s educational career was not destroyed by that one moment. Clearly the Internet is littered with such garbage, and stories like this have become commonplace; from observing students where I teach, many are now able to filter the vulgar garbage out (in a classroom context, anyway). The bigger issue at stake here, as Kajder goes on to suggest, is the one of finding information relevant to one’s research, and having confidence that the information is accurate.
I’m going to focus on two things Kadjer brings up in this chapter:
1) Internet Access – “The most recent federal research finds that more than 98% of
Kajder also notes that students “download study tools such as Cliffs Notes, Monarch Notes, and study guides (pg. 50). SparkNotes should be added to that list. SparkNotes was, I believe, originally created by Harvard students – here’s their self-description: “Created by Harvard students for students everywhere and geared to what today's students need to know…” and they also claim to “love teachers.” It is the most popular “study guide” being used by students at Xaverian (for English class). Some progressive thinking teachers may see SparkNotes as a legitimate study tool, as a friend (and they may have a point); but I see them as the enemy. They are free and easily accessible, and they do a very good job in breaking down – in an impersonal, generic fashion – themes, symbols, plot summaries, etc. In essence, they do all the thinking for the student. On page 61, Kajder cites a quote from Jim Burke’s The English Teacher’s Companion: “Internet thinking is not inherently reflective; it’s hard to think too much about where you are going when you are driving a hundred miles an hour as many do on the Internet.” SparkNotes contributes to this reckless driving.
2) Search Engines – To me, this section of Kajder’s chapter feels dated. The book was published in 2003, which means she was writing in 2002 – around five years ago. So I’ll throw this question out there – Is there really that much difference between search engines anymore? On pages 57 and 58, she describes a search she did on “Othello AND Shakespeare.” I tried this same search on google, dogpile, metacrawler, and yahoo – C4 looked shady, and profusion is out of business. The results were, more or less, the same each time: SparkNotes and Wikipedia listed in the top five, other less known study sites like enotes were pretty high up there, on two of searches an advertisement for boating equipment came up (?), and frankly, some of the sites on Shakespeare appeared a little dubious (shakespeare-literature.com). I had to sift through to find urls connected with a university (which, I know Kajder says those aren’t necessarily more accurate, but I’ll take mit.edu over a site where I have no clue who authored it).
So – students need to delve deeper when researching on the Internet. They need to be aware of the pitfalls and/or mirages that exist in the barrage of information flying on the screen before them.
One last idea – they need to know how to use the library. There’s no going back at this point – students will always use the Internet for research. One of the Internet’s great benefits when approached critically is its convenience.
But taking a class to the library is usually a positive initiative. Yes, it does require a lot of planning and coordinating, but it’s good for students to see that a library is not really confusing or intimidating – and information can be just as easily found there, you just have to walk around a little more. Internet and library research could complement each other well.
Sunday, 17 June 2007
On Kajder Ch.8: Excitement and Caution
For the past two weeks, I’ve spent almost all of my course-related time experimenting with and envisioning using in the classroom all of these web-related tools. Ellie’s question on Chapter 8 from Kajder, “(C)ould you imagine using any of them with your students?”, gets me thinking that I’m cursed with being able to imagine everything. Every tool we’ve looked at, from wikis to webquests, I’ve thought about applying to both the freshman and senior English classes I’ll have next year. Two weeks ago, with wikis and blogs, I forsook almost all of my discussion board time playing around with these two tools.
This week, more tools to think about and explore, and I again used the time meant for constructing an initial response for the discussion board in order to take a virtual tour through the Dickens museum and play around with The Catcher in the Rye webquests. Everything goes on the list of things to set up this summer for use in the fall, but realistically, I’ll wait until the end of the course to make a short list of things I’d certainly like to get in next year. Here’s what such a list might look like. For the use of emails, I’d like to arrange collective class email lists for sending weekly assignment sheets (and do away with paper?). Discussion board—this is a very exciting idea for an evening homework assignment and an opportunity to see what kind of discussion about literature comes about. I used Kajder’s advice and played around with QuickTopic.com to see that it was very easy to set up a board. With webquests and virtual museums and field trips also piquing my interest, I surfed around to see all sorts of sites already available. The wiki, or a new website (we haven’t gotten that far yet), and I do see a place for blogs, too, although I can’t yet distinguish a blog from a discussion board. In addition to already being dedicated to beginning to receive some papers electronically—and responding to them so—there’s plenty electronic stuff on my plate for next year.
So, yes, these are exciting ideas and tools on my horizon that no doubt may yield important results for students also, but I also can’t help but think that there is still so much of the more traditional tools that, if I improve on them, will yield equally important results. I think it’s fair to ask, just how substantial, fundamental, are these technological innovations in the classroom? For me, literature is still about a person with the book, and teaching it is still about providing ways for students to have an experience with a book and its characters, creating forums for students to struggle with and wonder about the decisions that characters make. Technological tools can advance these goals, sure, but some very dynamic traditional classroom discussions can come from the right question being asked with the right discussion format. And writing, too—still about this solitary activity of being alone with a pen (okay, the keyboard—but still solitary), and teaching writing—academic writing, really—is still about emphasizing unity, clarity, and voice. Does this writing experience change with electronic responses over handwritten ones? Kajder’s recommended question for the teacher near the beginning of the chapter—“ask whether a tool enables students to do something they couldn’t do before, or could do before but now do it better” (98)—is the right one to ask. I’m inclined to say that the only way to know is to try it and see what happens.
I am excited about these different tools, perhaps, selfishly, more for the newness it offers to my own school day than for the certainty that these tools will advance students further than they would be if they remained in those dark ages of the neatly bound novel, some lined paper, and just their thoughts, mouths, and a pen to use for exploring.
This week, more tools to think about and explore, and I again used the time meant for constructing an initial response for the discussion board in order to take a virtual tour through the Dickens museum and play around with The Catcher in the Rye webquests. Everything goes on the list of things to set up this summer for use in the fall, but realistically, I’ll wait until the end of the course to make a short list of things I’d certainly like to get in next year. Here’s what such a list might look like. For the use of emails, I’d like to arrange collective class email lists for sending weekly assignment sheets (and do away with paper?). Discussion board—this is a very exciting idea for an evening homework assignment and an opportunity to see what kind of discussion about literature comes about. I used Kajder’s advice and played around with QuickTopic.com to see that it was very easy to set up a board. With webquests and virtual museums and field trips also piquing my interest, I surfed around to see all sorts of sites already available. The wiki, or a new website (we haven’t gotten that far yet), and I do see a place for blogs, too, although I can’t yet distinguish a blog from a discussion board. In addition to already being dedicated to beginning to receive some papers electronically—and responding to them so—there’s plenty electronic stuff on my plate for next year.
So, yes, these are exciting ideas and tools on my horizon that no doubt may yield important results for students also, but I also can’t help but think that there is still so much of the more traditional tools that, if I improve on them, will yield equally important results. I think it’s fair to ask, just how substantial, fundamental, are these technological innovations in the classroom? For me, literature is still about a person with the book, and teaching it is still about providing ways for students to have an experience with a book and its characters, creating forums for students to struggle with and wonder about the decisions that characters make. Technological tools can advance these goals, sure, but some very dynamic traditional classroom discussions can come from the right question being asked with the right discussion format. And writing, too—still about this solitary activity of being alone with a pen (okay, the keyboard—but still solitary), and teaching writing—academic writing, really—is still about emphasizing unity, clarity, and voice. Does this writing experience change with electronic responses over handwritten ones? Kajder’s recommended question for the teacher near the beginning of the chapter—“ask whether a tool enables students to do something they couldn’t do before, or could do before but now do it better” (98)—is the right one to ask. I’m inclined to say that the only way to know is to try it and see what happens.
I am excited about these different tools, perhaps, selfishly, more for the newness it offers to my own school day than for the certainty that these tools will advance students further than they would be if they remained in those dark ages of the neatly bound novel, some lined paper, and just their thoughts, mouths, and a pen to use for exploring.
On the topic of "discussing"
Despite my criticism of Krause in my previous posting, I am going to add that I completely see his point that blogs do not foster discussion (as compared to electronic mailing lists). I have to force myself to post this text with which I am uncomfortable, because it is short and only makes a passing comment, rather than analyzing a text. I am doing this to “attempt” the discussion mode which I was able to engage in the previous 2 weeks. Nevertheless, I think that the awkward look this will have on the thread of postings in this blog supports Krause’s point. Also, the steps that have to be taken to read from the first to the latest posting is counterintuitive and (I think) discourages dialogue: to follow the order of the posts, we must read from the bottom up and from the back forward (“older posts” to “newer posts”), and then we must again scroll down to get to the next page (because the top of the page does not offer the option to go to a newer page)—all of this in order to follow and enter into the discussion. Another hindrance is that it is necessary to read every single post (and remember what each one says) in order to see if there is a discussion at all—that is, if there is anyone “responding” to anyone else. For me, reading a list of often disconnected texts on different articles (of course, with a common theme), does not encourage responding to anyone. Rather, I am inclined to continue posting my own individual contribution. What I have read (and written) so far really does not feel like a discussion to me. Thus, despite my earlier disparaging of his article for other reasons, I agree with Krause that this medium lends itself more to “publishing” rather than interactive discussion.
Classroom communities & how to best use a wiki
I liked the idea that Kadjer presented in Chapter 8 about the communities that can be formed through the internet. It seems such a simple idea - use what the kids are already using to promote their academic growth! Wow! So, simple, yet I've never done it. She says that "we strive to create meaningful spaces for student learning," which is absolutely right, but I think I've been trying too hard (98). The wikis and blogs that we've experimented with this week have planted a seed in my head of the possibilities that can arise using the internet. She refers specifically to email in the beginning of her chapter. "E-mail is appealing to students (and teachers) because of its speed, efficiency, ubiquity, and accessibility" (99). Although I personally love the speed of the internet, I still feel that it takes away some of the interpersonal connection that an in class discussion has. Yet, using these programs only reminds me that my students communicate in this form daily. Many of them text each other frequently instead of calling each other (something I hate when people do to me - for example sending me an invitation to go out as a text message instead of calling me directly!). Although I may think that it's impersonal, my students don't. My class needs to be interesting for them, not necessarily for me. If this will keep them engaged then this is what I need to include in my class to be a successful teacher. Which brings me to my reactions to "When Blogging Goes Bad: A Cautionary Tale About Blogs, Email Lists, Discussion, and Interaction". Krause begins by quoting that " "Content Delivery in the 'Blogosphere,'" Richard E. Ferdig and Kaye D. Trammell claim that the benefits of blogs in classrooms include giving students a "legitimate" space to participate in discussions and to share diverse perspectives with readers in and outside of the classroom," - my own initial reaction to what blogging could promote in a classroom. Yet, Krause's article also seems very reasonable. He talks about people feeling disengaged, lack of a dynamic, and lack of participation. I appreciated this article because of its honesty. It presented many of the concerns that I have had in the previous weeks but it also leads me to think that the use of blogs and wikis in a class have their place, as long as they are only a small portion of the class. For example, the professor who came to our lab last week (and I apologize for not referring to her by name), I think had a successful experience with her wiki project because it was simply a project that the class did to help their grade, not a substantial part of the course. If the class really reacts well to the project, then there could be a possibility of expanding its use. Yet, I think the idea behind including these programs in class should be to attempt to talk outside of class, to expand thier use of technology, to add another dynamic to the class, and to provide for mulitple communciation levels. What do you think?
When Blogging Goes Bad
After much frustration, I have now managed to post on the google group and also on the class blog(twice by mistake...does anyone know how to delete?). Despite this, because of my discomfort with blogs, I still feel like an outsider in this discussion (see my previous posting on Kajder chapter 4 & 8). Therefore, I think it appropriate to discuss Steven Krause’s “When Blogging Goes Bad: a Cautionary Tale About Blogs, Email Lists, Discussion, and Interaction.” In case someone hasn’t read it, the gist of it is that Krause asserts that, for the purposes of teaching writing, blogs are a forum for “publishing,” while email mailing lists are a means of “communication.” Krause analyzes the reasons for the failure of an “experiment” with blogs in his advanced writing class: “There was very little writing that could be described as reflective, dynamic, collaborative, or interactive...almost no exchange or conversation...it wasn’t even clear if the students were reading other posts. Individuals made their posts in an erratic and inconsistent manner, and they moved on.” (5) In his essay, Krause makes the case that despite the shortcomings in his own assignment, a good part of the reason for its failure was the decision to use blogs rather than email as a site for discussion. Along the way, he makes a series of statements, which I’d like to explore as a student of writing also attempting to use blogs for a class.
Krause purposely gives few prompts or direction as to what should go on his class blog, or how much each student should contribute. His intention is to create a space for spontaneous intellectual interaction, “where [his] students would simply just want to write.” The students’ failure to “want to write” disappoints Krause and, despite his reflection on the objective reasons and his understanding that his own lack of structure for this assignment was greatly to blame, he still feels disappointed by the fact that, when given the opportunity to write without restrictions, advanced students of writing do not use that opportunity.
Krause attributes his disappointment to the “idealistic” misconception of much writing theory, which claims that “writing teachers ought to focus on fostering and nurturing an atmosphere where...students can write not because they are being required to do so by some sort of ‘teacherly’ assignment, but because they want to write.” (5) Krause concludes that students are never going to want to write about anything without “a reason—and generally a personal reason.” (6) I will take the chance that my comment on all of this might seem self-evident or off-topic. Krause’s view of students strikes me as reductive. One basic fact which Krause neglects to mention is that posting on blogs (or anywhere, for that matter) involves a great deal of work. From his description of his class requirements, it would seem he expected students to hold this online discussion in addition to the regular work of his course. He does not seem to have incorporated this new form of writing in his own syllabus.
I think that one of the dangers of incorporating computer technology into our teaching is that, often, it is added to the traditional print work, not instead of some of the other class requirements. Because some people often spend a great deal of time on their computers doing personal tasks (emailing, blogging, surfing, etc.), it is easy to equate these online writing forums to relaxed, stress-free activities, when, in fact, the personal tasks to which people devote their time are recreational. It is the nature of the task, not the medium, which promotes free and, often, exploratory communication, such as that which Krause hoped for. In reality, students are aware that they are students when they are doing any communication for a class (blogs, email, or paper and pencil). There might not be any forum in which students can feel that class-related work is recreational. In contrast with Krause’s implications, I do not think this means that student writers do not become truly interested, even invested, in what they write. This does not mean that students will not reflect and discuss on paper or online in the way Krause envisioned. It does mean, however, that students are aware that there is a teacher expectation—the proof is in Krause’s disappointment, which was great enough to write about in an article, stating that he had hoped that his students would take the opportunity to write without being obligated because they were “grown-ups.” (5) It is hard to think of more condemning judgment than that.
Perhaps Krause has a point when he argues that “email posts to mailing lists are drafts or works in progress, and more often than not, they demand a literal response....and that [b]log posts are more finished...and while readers might ‘respond’ in some sort of metaphoric way, they are not as likely to write a direct response to the writer.” (9) In fact, if we can forget my inability with blogs, I have posted single, non-conversational texts this week myself, just as Krause suggests this medium encourages. So, Krause’s theory might hold some truth. However, I think his analysis of the failure of this technology in the classroom leaves out something that all teachers need to consider when incorporating technology into their teaching: class work is just that, work for a class. It can lead to rich and fruitful dialogue and reflection, but students will (and should) always be aware that it has standards by which to abide.
In her chapter on “Creating Community,” when discussing online discussion, precisely what Krause wanted his students to engage in, Kajder talks about the “clear dividing line between [her] professional and personal worlds,” and how she expects, and takes measures to ensure, the same from her students. I think teachers need to hold the same understanding when thinking of the purposes for class writing in contrast with those for personal writing. I believe the reason for the failure of Krause’s experiment lies in the fact that he believed the technology he was incorporating (blogs) would change the nature of the work the students were doing—so that they would “simply just want to write.” Because they were graduate students, and adults, he seemed to expect them to write as if his were not a class, a graduation requirement, one that they probably took concurrently with others, perhaps in addition to working and/or taking care of their families. The fact is that there are concrete reasons why his students weren’t going to want to “‘just want to write’ in a blog space (or anywhere else, for that matter, just because they were given the opportunity.” (5-6)
When referring to high school students, Kajder makes a very important point in relation to the use of online discussion tools: “It’s [giving an assignment] only different online insofar as it asks us to think and respond in a different medium... [i]t’s easy for the teachers to think that the technology itself will lead students to high-level thinking. Not true.” (103) Kajder’s point on higher level thinking in high school students, applies to Krause’s situation in that the medium will not change the fact that the discussion is part of a class, to be read by members or that class, including a professor.
At the time of writing his text, Krause planned to use blogs in a graduate class the following semester, hoping that the students would “come to see their class blog space as a useful research and prewriting tool.” I hope he was successful, but I can’t help but think that, again, he was overlooking the fact that posting writing on a blog, would not make it any less of a required assignment. As a graduate student, I would, personally, not present all of my prewriting and research writing for class or instructor reading. Instead, I would consider the expectation to post on a blog another class assignment, in addition, to my research and authentic prewriting work (to be re-worked over and over again before posting), making the blog an added assignment in my eyes.
Krause purposely gives few prompts or direction as to what should go on his class blog, or how much each student should contribute. His intention is to create a space for spontaneous intellectual interaction, “where [his] students would simply just want to write.” The students’ failure to “want to write” disappoints Krause and, despite his reflection on the objective reasons and his understanding that his own lack of structure for this assignment was greatly to blame, he still feels disappointed by the fact that, when given the opportunity to write without restrictions, advanced students of writing do not use that opportunity.
Krause attributes his disappointment to the “idealistic” misconception of much writing theory, which claims that “writing teachers ought to focus on fostering and nurturing an atmosphere where...students can write not because they are being required to do so by some sort of ‘teacherly’ assignment, but because they want to write.” (5) Krause concludes that students are never going to want to write about anything without “a reason—and generally a personal reason.” (6) I will take the chance that my comment on all of this might seem self-evident or off-topic. Krause’s view of students strikes me as reductive. One basic fact which Krause neglects to mention is that posting on blogs (or anywhere, for that matter) involves a great deal of work. From his description of his class requirements, it would seem he expected students to hold this online discussion in addition to the regular work of his course. He does not seem to have incorporated this new form of writing in his own syllabus.
I think that one of the dangers of incorporating computer technology into our teaching is that, often, it is added to the traditional print work, not instead of some of the other class requirements. Because some people often spend a great deal of time on their computers doing personal tasks (emailing, blogging, surfing, etc.), it is easy to equate these online writing forums to relaxed, stress-free activities, when, in fact, the personal tasks to which people devote their time are recreational. It is the nature of the task, not the medium, which promotes free and, often, exploratory communication, such as that which Krause hoped for. In reality, students are aware that they are students when they are doing any communication for a class (blogs, email, or paper and pencil). There might not be any forum in which students can feel that class-related work is recreational. In contrast with Krause’s implications, I do not think this means that student writers do not become truly interested, even invested, in what they write. This does not mean that students will not reflect and discuss on paper or online in the way Krause envisioned. It does mean, however, that students are aware that there is a teacher expectation—the proof is in Krause’s disappointment, which was great enough to write about in an article, stating that he had hoped that his students would take the opportunity to write without being obligated because they were “grown-ups.” (5) It is hard to think of more condemning judgment than that.
Perhaps Krause has a point when he argues that “email posts to mailing lists are drafts or works in progress, and more often than not, they demand a literal response....and that [b]log posts are more finished...and while readers might ‘respond’ in some sort of metaphoric way, they are not as likely to write a direct response to the writer.” (9) In fact, if we can forget my inability with blogs, I have posted single, non-conversational texts this week myself, just as Krause suggests this medium encourages. So, Krause’s theory might hold some truth. However, I think his analysis of the failure of this technology in the classroom leaves out something that all teachers need to consider when incorporating technology into their teaching: class work is just that, work for a class. It can lead to rich and fruitful dialogue and reflection, but students will (and should) always be aware that it has standards by which to abide.
In her chapter on “Creating Community,” when discussing online discussion, precisely what Krause wanted his students to engage in, Kajder talks about the “clear dividing line between [her] professional and personal worlds,” and how she expects, and takes measures to ensure, the same from her students. I think teachers need to hold the same understanding when thinking of the purposes for class writing in contrast with those for personal writing. I believe the reason for the failure of Krause’s experiment lies in the fact that he believed the technology he was incorporating (blogs) would change the nature of the work the students were doing—so that they would “simply just want to write.” Because they were graduate students, and adults, he seemed to expect them to write as if his were not a class, a graduation requirement, one that they probably took concurrently with others, perhaps in addition to working and/or taking care of their families. The fact is that there are concrete reasons why his students weren’t going to want to “‘just want to write’ in a blog space (or anywhere else, for that matter, just because they were given the opportunity.” (5-6)
When referring to high school students, Kajder makes a very important point in relation to the use of online discussion tools: “It’s [giving an assignment] only different online insofar as it asks us to think and respond in a different medium... [i]t’s easy for the teachers to think that the technology itself will lead students to high-level thinking. Not true.” (103) Kajder’s point on higher level thinking in high school students, applies to Krause’s situation in that the medium will not change the fact that the discussion is part of a class, to be read by members or that class, including a professor.
At the time of writing his text, Krause planned to use blogs in a graduate class the following semester, hoping that the students would “come to see their class blog space as a useful research and prewriting tool.” I hope he was successful, but I can’t help but think that, again, he was overlooking the fact that posting writing on a blog, would not make it any less of a required assignment. As a graduate student, I would, personally, not present all of my prewriting and research writing for class or instructor reading. Instead, I would consider the expectation to post on a blog another class assignment, in addition, to my research and authentic prewriting work (to be re-worked over and over again before posting), making the blog an added assignment in my eyes.
Thoughts on Blogging and Wikis
Thoughts on Blogging and Wikis
First, I’ll start with the genre that interested me least- the wiki. I read “Making the Case for a Wiki,” and I have to say that it really didn’t persuade me to start using it as a tool in my classroom. I have to say that I did go into reading the article with a bias, my only experience with a wiki being Wikipedia, which I feel is an unreliable source. I hate it when my students use that as a reference (even when I tell them not to), but I know that when they type something into Google or whatever, that Wikipedia entries are one of the first things to pop up. They don’t understand that they could create or edit an entry, or that they could be getting their information from someone who really knows very little about the subject, or has posted incorrect information.
But to get off of my own personal feelings about wikis, and onto the article, I think it actually reinforced my issues with wikis. Reading about the “edit wars” that take place over controversial issues only confirmed to me that there are serious issues with wikis— as far as I know, no one can delete your blog, or change your words. I suppose if the wiki had a page locking system as Tonkin suggests, then it would improve the authenticity of the wiki, and a reader could see the natural flow and progression of an idea as it is shaped. I do think the “mapping” that can take place with a wiki could be useful as well, but overall I don’t think that I will be using wikis in my classroom.
On a more positive note, I do think that blogging could be something I utilize in my teaching. I read both ”When Blogging Goes Bad…” and “New Jersery High School Learns the ABCs of Blogging,” and they both started to get the ball rolling in terms of what I could do with my students next year. I think that Krause’s story was really helpful in that he modeled what not to do, and I was able to pick up some pointers for blogging with my students. I think his biggest mistake was that the assignments and expectations were not clear to the students, and I believe he knows that. That is one thing I learned very early on in teaching— you have to spell it all out for them, or else you’ll be disappointed in the results. He also assumed that because the students were graduate students, they would be more internally motivated to do work voluntarily— well, we all know what happens when you assume. When I do use blogging in my classroom, I now know I need to be very clear about the expectations— what I want posted, how frequently, responding to the postings of other students etc.
So even though his article was about blogging gone awry, it was still very helpful to me. The article about the New Jersey high school was pretty simplistic, a cheerleader of sorts for blogging— since I read it after Krause’s article there wasn’t anything terribly new or informational about it. It was simply an example of an effective way to use blogging in your classroom that echoed what Kajder said in Chapter 8, and is an example to follow. I would have liked to hear more about how the teacher set it up, student opinions, assignments (i.e. what the study guide assignment looked like), how he got the students motivated etc. I think he could have done a lot more with that article.
First, I’ll start with the genre that interested me least- the wiki. I read “Making the Case for a Wiki,” and I have to say that it really didn’t persuade me to start using it as a tool in my classroom. I have to say that I did go into reading the article with a bias, my only experience with a wiki being Wikipedia, which I feel is an unreliable source. I hate it when my students use that as a reference (even when I tell them not to), but I know that when they type something into Google or whatever, that Wikipedia entries are one of the first things to pop up. They don’t understand that they could create or edit an entry, or that they could be getting their information from someone who really knows very little about the subject, or has posted incorrect information.
But to get off of my own personal feelings about wikis, and onto the article, I think it actually reinforced my issues with wikis. Reading about the “edit wars” that take place over controversial issues only confirmed to me that there are serious issues with wikis— as far as I know, no one can delete your blog, or change your words. I suppose if the wiki had a page locking system as Tonkin suggests, then it would improve the authenticity of the wiki, and a reader could see the natural flow and progression of an idea as it is shaped. I do think the “mapping” that can take place with a wiki could be useful as well, but overall I don’t think that I will be using wikis in my classroom.
On a more positive note, I do think that blogging could be something I utilize in my teaching. I read both ”When Blogging Goes Bad…” and “New Jersery High School Learns the ABCs of Blogging,” and they both started to get the ball rolling in terms of what I could do with my students next year. I think that Krause’s story was really helpful in that he modeled what not to do, and I was able to pick up some pointers for blogging with my students. I think his biggest mistake was that the assignments and expectations were not clear to the students, and I believe he knows that. That is one thing I learned very early on in teaching— you have to spell it all out for them, or else you’ll be disappointed in the results. He also assumed that because the students were graduate students, they would be more internally motivated to do work voluntarily— well, we all know what happens when you assume. When I do use blogging in my classroom, I now know I need to be very clear about the expectations— what I want posted, how frequently, responding to the postings of other students etc.
So even though his article was about blogging gone awry, it was still very helpful to me. The article about the New Jersey high school was pretty simplistic, a cheerleader of sorts for blogging— since I read it after Krause’s article there wasn’t anything terribly new or informational about it. It was simply an example of an effective way to use blogging in your classroom that echoed what Kajder said in Chapter 8, and is an example to follow. I would have liked to hear more about how the teacher set it up, student opinions, assignments (i.e. what the study guide assignment looked like), how he got the students motivated etc. I think he could have done a lot more with that article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)