A Post About Whatever I Want

I found Miller’s and Shepherd’s article on “Blogging as Social Action” quite interesting this week. I thought the concept that the confessional nature of blogs has blurred the line between private and public was entirely truthful and fascinating. The authors mention how these social media platforms create a unique opportunity for kairos, saying the right thing in the right amount at the right time. More so than blogging, though, I think that kairos has become the defining factor of Twitter. Creating concise witticisms that take up no more than 140 characters takes discipline and practice, and not everyone can achieve this form of kairos. Twitter even released a manual instructing politicians how to best use the platform to craft their messages to followers (and I suppose that Trump and Carson have used different strategies than advised, as their shared goal only seems to be sounding freaking crazy to garner attention).

Miller and Shepherd point out that these types of platforms can “seize on the unique opportunity of a fleeting moment to create a new rhetorical possibility.” Anyone, with proper understanding of how to craft a concise message, can become famous almost overnight through social media. We literally have a category of social media stars these days, who find their voice on Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, etc. What fascinates me about this, though, is the fact that we all daily see individuals who use these platforms almost unsuccessfully; people tend to mix up intended uses for each medium. For example:

• ·      Using blogs/Facebook/Twitter as a diary or journal
• ·      Using Facebook as Google
• ·      Using Facebook/Instagram/Twitter as free advertisements (you know, the post with ONE MILLION hashtags)
• ·      Using Facebook walls in place of private messaging/text messaging
• ·      And finally, not allowing for the restrictions of an online medium. The post is too long, not broken up enough, or just looks uninteresting. We all know this feeling:
• 
  

Online writing and writing is exponentially different than offline. Miller and Shepherd point out this concept of voyeurism through social media; they assert, “The technology of the internet makes it easier than ever for anyone to be either voyeur or an exhibitionist.” We tend to make ourselves into willing subjects, creating a social media identity, or as we refer to it in professional domains, social media presence. On the other end of the spectrum, we “creep” on other individuals that have created a web presence for themselves. Facebook was revolutionary in this regard—generations had never before grown up with an ability to instantly gain knowledge about another person without actually interacting with said person. This is so engrained in our society that it has now become a common courtesy to Facebook “friend” any acquaintances in everyday life. Our immediate reaction is to search for someone online in order to get to know him/her.

I am fascinated with how this online presence bleeds into job searches. I, among hundreds of thousands of users, have spent ridiculous amounts of time crafting my LinkedIn profile in the past, thinking that this would have a grand influence on any potential job opportunities. However, now, it seems to me that to be professional online, one should concentrate on one’s own domain space like we’ve been discussing in class. I am still trying to figure out how this would look for someone in my specialization, as I do not have much experience with publications or conferences.

Overall, I think we are all still figuring out what the Internet and social media presence can do for us, or how misuse of it will negatively affect a version of our identities.

A String of Thoughts on Robert Brooke's "Underlife"

As I am opting out of the article for this class, I thought I’d discuss my thoughts on one of our readings from this past week.

Robert Brooke describes an “underlife” as having a more complex personality outside that of a defined role—specifically that of student or teacher. He asserts, “Students disobey, write letters instead of taking notes, and whisper to their peers to show that they are more than just students and can think independently of classroom expectations” (721). He says that this concept rests on three assumptions about social interaction: We understand someone based on (1) how they look or sound, (2) what we know about their history, and (3) stances they take towards groups we assume they belong to. Brooke goes on to highlight several different types of underlife that occur in the classroom, the last of which is the most common way that we tend to think about “underlife”—a student’s attention being divided between class activity and something else.

I find his thoughts quite interesting, as I have always typically been a “leave your personal life at the door” kind of person, even as a student. I think there are many ways to learn to be professional in class and showcase your own identity at the same time, though I suppose this depends on the receptivity of the classroom environment. For example, in classes where I have been a student, I have enjoyed expressing my own opinion, but within appropriate reason. I think the classroom provides ample opportunity for students to learn to wrangle their more hostile or unreasonable behaviors when trying to express their ideas; also, students have to learn to pay attention to things they may not even be interested in. If we’re going to look toward teaching what will be relevant to the student, we have to recognize that learning to be professional is relevant to anyone who will have any job. For the most part, your job will not care if you come to work tired or sad, or feel as though you cannot work that day (save for issues with actual sickness). They will not condone your behavior if you do not listen or contribute during meetings. They will not keep you on if you cannot express your opinion in a way that is both helpful and peaceful.

With this in mind, of course we should be doing all we can to encourage voice and identity in the classroom, especially in encouraging our students to see themselves as writers. Brooke describes how most teachers are likely to describe students’ identities in terms of “voice,” a unique stance that an individual takes toward an experience. However, I find it hard to believe that certain forms of underlife, unnecessary distractions (like cell phones), are a firm part of anyone’s identity. If a student cannot part with their phone for the length of a class period, I do not assume that the student is working on something miraculous and technologically innovative, I’m sorry to say. I could be wrong (and the student would be welcome to prove me wrong if they wish), but I assume that the student is texting, or on Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, or one of the other hundreds of potential social media cites. The vision that we have of this generation, that they are more bound by technology than any other generation, is not entirely true in my opinion. I actually think that generations who did not have this technology previously are much more likely to be obsessed with its innovations. For this reason, I am more inclined to think that students’ identities are not wrapped up in technology, especially as writers. Postman’s description of “information glut” always sticks out to me; if we never move past the Internet and what it can bring to the table, students will be so stunted and paralyzed by the sheer amounts of information that they will never feel that they can have original thoughts. I am all for expressing identity in the classroom, but I feel that, to make students feel comfortable as writers, we should have them begin in a somewhat isolated state, unencumbered by the innumerable ideas of generations that came before them. If not, if we want to capitalize on the technological innovations of our time for educational purposes, perhaps there should be a required class before composition that teaches students how to properly navigate the Internet and sort through “information glut.”

Review the learning objectives for this course. What's one thing you've learned that connects to an objective and to your future job?

I would say the learning objective I felt that we most focused on throughout this class is the aspect of critical thinking: “Students will become more conscious of their processes for planning, drafting, revising, and editing of writing. Students will take an active role in summarizing, synthesizing, and presenting course content.” In this course, I have been confronted with figuring out how I will conduct a classroom, what teaching philosophies I will adhere to (which, I am sorry to say, I had never considered thoroughly before). Not only have I examined my own methods of writing, but also I have been able to examine other possible methods that need to be made available to my future students.

We have worked through theories on various methods of writing through our readings on revision/processes of writing and the hypermediated syllabus assignment. I had never come into contact with any of the assigned readings from this class. This is most likely because the classes I took at my undergrad did not have a focus on rhetoric specifically, and I had never before taken an interest in composition. (Even if I had, I’m fairly sure they teach FYC through literature at HSU). I thought that these readings provided necessary and needed insight to my future teaching career, as I had never taken a class that focuses primarily on the discussion of pedagogy/andragogy. These theories we have gone over have fascinating implications for the classroom and what it means to be teaching students from all different backgrounds. I appreciate that names were given to the phenomenons of “guarding the tower” and “converting the natives,” explaining that all new English teachers will tend to experience these forms of miscommunication with students that they are trying so desperately to impact.

The largest and most important assignment that this class had to offer for me was the hypermediated syllabus. Never before have I been confronted with building my own class, and I was intimidated by it. Even after simmering in all these readings the whole semester, I still remain unsure of the theories behind my choices and whether or not I will continue to think of them as viable ways of teaching—especially since I have yet to teach my own class. Nevertheless, I think it was a valuable experience to be required to think over these ideas and have to momentarily commit to a method of teaching. This syllabus assignment only touched on the decisions I will eventually have to make. While writing it, I know that I played it safe in certain areas where I might not in the future, and I committed to assignments that I have seen work in other classes while avoiding creating my own. I am not quite sure that I brought the “funk,” as Dr. Rice requested, but perhaps with more practice I can step it up.

These experiences will obviously influence my future career as a professor. There is one thing that I wish I had paired with this class this semester—I wish I had taken the initiative to shadow a CI in their 1301 course. I know that I learn best through observing others, so I plan on taking this up next semester.

Identify where you think students may fail in an assignment in your syllabus, and how you will use that at a teachable moment by design.

In my syllabus, I included some reasonable assignments that I believe FYC students should grasp the concept of without much trouble, such as daily quizzes and readings, a weekly blog, a group multimedia project, peer critiques, and a rhetorical analysis. The one assignment that I believe would be out of an FYC student’s norm is the emulation paper:

Emulation Paper: Students will analyze two small passages of prose (posted on Blackboard) and compose their own creative passages that emulate each original author’s style. In addition, students will turn in a one-page reflection for each emulation discussing (1) specific written mannerisms or choices they see the author making and (2) how these choices contribute to the author’s argument and style.

I have taken this assignment from one of my undergraduate grammar classes. We were given a passage of Hemingway’s and another of Mary Oliver’s. This assignment caused me to not only analyze a work, but to dissect it. In my mind, this is a valuable exercise that liberates students temporarily from the pressure of finding their own style; rather, they can try out other techniques that they might have otherwise been afraid of using. I think that Hemingway is a useful author to assign because students do not have to be intimidated by a large vocabulary. His style is simple, but distinctive. Oliver would be a more difficult author for basic writers to emulate, but she provides more opportunity for more creative students to indulge in a new writing style.

I see various things that would confuse a student and perhaps cause him/her to stumble. First of all, FYC students have been taught to be very concerned about plagiarism. I think there could be some confusion about what it means to “emulate” an author without copying their work. We would have extensive discussion about this problem in class, looking at several examples of emulations and dissecting what the emulator did in their own writing to mirror the original author’s. This assignment emphasizes the importance of grammar in writing, showing how form shapes content. I think this could also be a point of confusion for some students, as many writers do not adhere to standard grammar. This makes students examine the purpose behind an author’s usage of such grammar, though. We would discuss reasons for particular phrasing, pacing, vocabulary choices, etc. Lastly, I think that students might be intimidated by having to come up with their own creative pieces.

I am not sure that basic writers would be able to succeed in this assignment, strictly because they must succeed at two things: Writing a cohesive section of their own creative writing prose and doing it in the style of someone else. I believe it is a valuable experience regardless, because students will be confronted with the role of form in one’s writing. Oftentimes, students cannot get past the fact that they are not “good” at grammar, and they do not comprehend that grammar is not meant to be a rule book. It is meant to help us convey exactly what we wish to convey, and there is a stark difference between those two purposes.

List 5 terms you don't quite know yet how to define from our final keywords list.

Keywords:

Dialectic vs. Rhetoric

Empowerment

Error correction

Intertextuality

Knowledge

"What is one assignment you will include in your syllabus assignment that uses collaboration and/or technology and/or other things Yancey, Selfe, Breuch, Bruffee, or Shaughnessey have discussed?"

All this talk of photo essays in class, and I had never heard of them before. I am so glad that we got an example of them in class on Monday. After looking at them, I think this is a great assignment for FYC students. We discussed how photo essays slow students down enough to maximize their on-task thought. In addition, collaboration on this type of creative assignment really forces students to discuss their own artistic ideas, and they may not have been challenged in this way before. I especially appreciate this assignment because the technology is not difficult to work with. Like Selfe puts forth: it is vital to create an assignment that maximizes dialectical engagement without cutting off students who don’t have a high technological literacy. So often we are discussing potential ways to incorporate technology into the classroom, and I find myself thinking that if I were a student, the technology itself would be a barrier for me. Maybe I’m just an old grandma when it comes to new technology—I have a basic grasp of how to do most things, but I often find myself thinking that the payoffs of learning some new technology don’t seem to be worth the struggle of learning it. I also am more than willing to recognize that upcoming students will have a better literacy of technology than I do.

As a student, I have always had a reluctance and an apprehensiveness toward both group projects and projects that required more than a basic knowledge of technology. Group projects seemed to exist just so I could carry the weight of four or five other students in my class, and they always somehow ended up with me (or if I was lucky, me and one other person) scrambling the night before it was due to finish every other neglected portion of the project. I think one of the worst cases of this was during my junior year of undergrad, when my professors wanted the entire Cultural Theory class (about 25 students) to collaborate on a group project to create a mock-news program. Everything worked out okay (mostly because we were a classroom full of honors students), but the stresses of collaborating with such a large group and trying our darndest to cope with difficult and unfamiliar technology in the span of two or three weeks almost proved to be too much. We ended up dividing the program into sketches, much like SNL sketches, and writing and filming in our smaller groups, and editing it together subsequently. (I’m embarrassed to say that a friend and I wrote a rap of new social media diction that has been added to our vocabulary over the years… and it turned out a’ight.)

…All this to say that I never dreamed of assigning many (if any) group projects after becoming a professor. Dr. Rice’s statement in class that all assignments should be group projects was some serious food for thought for me. I understand that in the “real world,” collaboration is an essential skill, and I agree that it should be practiced at least once a semester. However, I do not think that making every project a group project in college would be great practice of the type of collaboration students will have to do in the “real world,”—if only due to the fact that at a job, the students get paid, whereas in school, the students are paying. For students who are used to getting by with the bare minimum grades, there is no reason for them to try in a group; rather, groups tend to protect lazy students and punish good students simultaneously. While we can make the argument that this also happens in the “real world,” we also have to acknowledge that in one instance, you can get fired, whereas in the other, you might just get a lower grade.

I think that for group projects to work, they must be like these photo essays. You must be able to see the collaboration, having each student define and defend the role s/he takes up during the project. In continuation with this idea, I think that groups should never receive one collective grade.

"Engage in discussion about something that captured your attention over the past few weeks in the course. Relate it back to specific class discussions, readings, and your grading/teaching when possible."

I suppose that one concept that has continued to stick out to me in this class is the problem of addressing an audience and teaching students to do so in their writing. We began talking about “audience” by reading Ede and Lunsford and noting their most important questions: What does it mean to address an audience? How do we define audience? To what degree should teachers address/stress audience?

We mentioned in class on Friday that the notion of audience has fundamentally changed in the last ten years with growing globalization. In this regard, it is difficult for students to understand that a piece of writing can have a specific audience, as opposed to sending it into the “void.” I have to admit that I also struggle with the concept of audience, and I find that I relate to the students who cannot always grasp the significance of “audience.” My high school taught English through rhetorical analysis, and I have come to feel that this is the reason I never felt strong about English until college (where they taught English classes through literature). In college, I was rarely, if ever, told to pick out the author’s audience. We would dwell on audience so far as it meant to look at a work’s context—time period, political landscape, biographical information about the author and their relationship to the rest of the world, etc. However, audience was rarely the entire focus in our study of literature. Much more so, in literature, we focused on resurfacing themes in a piece. Literature became the study of a person’s mind and the ways that they chose to present it in writing.

For some reason, discussion of audience can sometimes seem unnatural to me, like going against the grain of what I feel the author was trying to do. Some authors don’t even know what they are doing as they write—they do not have an audience in mind, and their only concern in regards to audience is if their work will be understood by a reader. We discussed in class Mitchell and Taylor’s “General Model of Writing” and how it places far too much emphasis on the audience (even disregarding the author as a reader). With this model, writing becomes pandering to the masses rather than expression of the human mind. In class, we have discussed several times the idea of the author as the first reader. In addition, we talked about audience addressed vs. audience invoked. My main concern is that sometimes, the author is the only reader. Some authors do not set out to “inform” or to “persuade” (they may do so in the process of writing, but for many this is not a primary goal). Some authors just wish to toy with an idea. Some authors begin writing because they see a problem and wish to offer new perspectives on it, to provoke thought in anyone who will read their piece, including themselves (and yet, in our grading, if a student points out that the author’s audience could be anyone, we tell them they need to specify, specify, specify).

Specifically while grading, I have noticed that most students struggle to supply an answer to the concept of “audience.” After three assignments that each ask for the audience and purpose of the same three articles, most students still don’t get it. (Something is wrong when a class does an assignment three times and is still doing it wrong). I think that many students cannot see the higher purpose in picking out audience/purpose/rhetorical choices, because many times, starting that small in a work makes you feel like you are failing to see the greater significance of the work. Specifically within andragogy, I find it almost impossible to explain to an adult why it matters that they be able to pick out the rhetorical choices that Robert MacNeil, John Simon, and Douglas McGray make. When you sit down to learn about great literature and your teacher tells you to search for rhetorical choices in the work (and that’s all you’re allowed to write about), it is very easy to get frustrated with English. In teaching with such a strong emphasis on rhetorical choices, audience, and purpose, I find that Shaughnessy’s idea says it all:  the student “risks as little as possible on the page… producing written Anguish.” We have to allow for deviation in the formula, for other potential ways of seeing a piece to peek through. It’s so complicated, because I feel that it is necessary to be able to recognize rhetorical choices, as that contributes to one’s interpretation of major themes in the work. But for me, writing never “clicked” until I was allowed to discuss the themes that I perceived in the work, rather than being herded into a distinct formula for a certain type of paper. For this reason, I loved the model of GW’s program that Jessica presented on during Friday’s class. I hope that programs like this can become the basis for other composition programs, as they provide such a high degree of relevance for the students.