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.