| Last "official" blog: Feminism |
[ | |
Posted on November 22, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
| | ] |
Reflecting on last week's class....
First, an excerpt from one of my responses on the course discussion board last week:
Feminist pedagogy means to me: a more decentralized, less hierarchical classroom atmosphere in which all student voices are valued and in which no one person or group dominates over another. This extends to the student-teacher relationship, and although I think it's pretty tough to completely erase the power structure of teacher/student, I think a feminist approach to teaching tries at least to minimize that power strucure. A feminist classroom encourages collaboration over competition.
How many people would recognize the above as a uniquely feminist approach to teaching? What makes it feminist, as opposed to other pedagogical approaches? Are some people practicing feminist pedagogy without knowing it? Does it matter? These are questions that I hear coming up over and over again, and I think part of the difficulty in "answering" the question is the fact that feminism tries to avoid rigidity - perhaps this makes it hard to express in traditionally academic ways, as there's a sort of language barrier there. The truckload of connotations attached to the word "feminist" don't help, either. I brought in my "Feminist Rhetorical Theoriest" anthology (not for the content, but for the kind of source it is), along with a bunch of other kinds of sources (books, articles, newspapers, etc.) for a class exercise one day, and you should have seen the students recoiling from that feminist book! Later in the semester, some students were speculating about why boys are considered "troublemakers" more than girls in schools, and "feminism" was cited as being one of the causes - their logic being that feminism = anti-male.
They aren't the only ones who think that, of course. Are there brands of feminism that are anti-male? Sure there are. But it seems like such a small part of contemporary feminism(s) - how can we lose that stereotypical male-hating image? Do we want to lose that at all? How can we bring other genders into the fold? I'd like to be able to tell my friends and family (non-academics) that I'm a feminist without them hiding their bras or fearing my angry wrath (if they don't already...haha). On one hand, sometimes I wonder if we need a new name; but on the other hand, a new name would seem to minimize the story of women and the role they have played in the evolution of the feminist movement.
I have no idea. What I do know, however, is that I find feminist pedagogy to be the most in line with who I am as a teacher and thinker. And, in terms of technology, I'm once again a little frustrated that I don't have as many opportunities as I'd like to have to merge these feminist principles with a more technologically-rich classroom environment. For now, I just file them away for later. You know that I'll being doing the Google image search thing, and I'll probably do something with Wikipedia if I ever get a chance to play with it. A critique of online discourse communities/artifacts is also something I'd love to do, and there were a lot of great versions of that on the discussion board over the past couple weeks.
Someday!
|
|
| BlackPlanet.com...identity politics in the classroom....stuff.... |
[ | |
Posted on November 13, 2006 @ 7:39 pm
| | ] |
So, I took a peek at the site we read about in the Adam Banks chapter. My first response to BlackPlanet.com is that it seems very MySpace-like. The general feel and energy of the layout, the networking aspect, the expansiveness of it all (is expansiveness even a word? it is now), the way it tries to offer something for everyone by covering a lot of bases - romance, professional networking, entertainment, style...and there's a lot of interactivity and potential for users to personalize their own space. This kind of site is certainly not new; but of course, this site is unique in that the advertisements, various icons of users, entertainment links, news/blogging/article content etc., all share this common racial thread.
It's not a surprise to me that sites like this exist on the Web. A natural response to a big, fragmented, overwhelmingly impersonal world is to find a way to make it smaller. This goes for the university, too - we make spaces for ourselves in departments, clubs, particular areas of campus, etc. - and part of this I think is related to our need to make the world smaller and more manageable for ourselves. For a lot of people, that also means being around people who look, talk, and think the same; to be part of a space where they don't feel "othered" in ways that they might be in larger spaces.
So, it makes sense that the really huge ginormous land of cyberspace would contain smaller "planets" like this - carving out a place for people with similar needs/desires/interests/whatever to communicate with each other - in this case, the major common thread is race.
I would like to try to bring attention to spaces like this in the classroom, I think. Of course I wouldn't single race out alone, but it seems like my minority students might benefit a lot; the few minority students I've had over the past year and a half have seemed to feel very marginalized in BG. I wonder if bringing attention to sites like this could not only help them to make the world smaller, but could help them to really critique and engage in discourse that is meaningful to them. I wonder if it would help some of them who have not had as much access to or interest in technology to embrace it a little more. As it is, I'm not sure I'm doing enough to help all of my students make the classroom their space, and I'm not sure I'm doing enough to help them empower themselves through technology instead of feel marginalized by it.
Identity politics has become a big issue for me this semester, as one of my students has been feeling VERY aware of her status as the only black person in one of my classes (apparently this is the case in all of her other classes, as well). I just found out that she's leaving the learning community at the end of the semester, and I'm pretty sure her feelings of isolation are a big part of that. Perhaps some of the critiquing activities and exploration of online discourse communities could help in situations like that. It's probably not wise to be overly utopian here, as there are lots of other variables that come into play in these kinds of situations....but it might help, and it certainly couldn't hurt. Right?
Teaching is hard.
|
|
| Hypermedia, Remediation, and Writing Space, Oh My! |
[ | |
Posted on October 22, 2006 @ 10:28 pm
| | ] |
The Bolter writing was great for me, and I'm sure it will be working its way into my midterm essay, since part of my interest is how physical, material space might intersect with cyberspace - so I appreciated his reminder that electronic writing still relies on users' interaction with physical objects. What I haven't figured out yet is if the cyborg is the site of that intersection, if it is the result of that intersection, if it is a text, a means of producing text, or all of the above. In fact, Bolter's discussion is really complicating a lot of my thinking, especially in terms of space and how I might conceptualize some of this. There's the thinking space of the user...there's the physical realm (the body, the computer, the keyboard, etc.)...there's the "cyber" space...there's the "integrated circuit" (borrowing from Haraway here)...and then, it seems, there are new spaces that are created in the various intersections of these entities. The fluidity of these relationships and of the medium as a whole is both what excites and frustrates me as I continue wrestling with this project, as it resists a hierarchical, linear model.
I like that he points out that hypertext forces us to reconsider what constitutes "unity" in a text (12); this point really struck me, and I wonder if perhaps part of the "remediation" that hypertext offers is that this challenge to perceptions of "unity" points to how we must also reconsider culturally what it means to have a "unified" identity, if there is such a thing. I read somewhere (sorry I don't have the source at the moment) that ALL identities are partial identities - the fact that digital texts are so intertextual begs the question if ALL digital texts are partial texts - doesn't it?
And then, there are these really, really good questions: How does this writing space refashion its predecessor? How does it claim to improve on print’s ability to make our thoughts visible and to constitute the lines of communication for our society?” (Bolter 13).
Good questions. So, does "remediation" have to apply to a text, or can a situation or a set of boundaries also be remediated? Can there be a remediation of gender? Can there be a remediation of identity? Can there be a remediation of the body?
|
|
| Eating Ketchup...I mean, Playing Catch-Up |
[ | |
Posted on October 22, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
| | ] |
From Week 8: History of Computers and Composition II
While the historical readings tend to be pretty dense (and therefore don't make for as enjoyable a read as some other selections), it is interesting to watch the field evolve on paper. One thing that strikes me is how a lot of the technologies we take for granted today (or that are now considered outdated, as the case may be) were just hitting their strides in the late 80s and early 90s - and I distinctly remember being a part of this. We got our 286 when I was 12 or 13, I was on bulletin board systems not long after that, I watched the multi-line BBSes start cropping up, and I prided myself at being able to communicate with several people in teleconference all at once - I was a master of reading scrolling ANSI text. I knew what a modem was, I knew what MMUD was, and my typing speed was crazy fast. It's interesting for me to reflect on this experience, knowing what I know now about how this field has emerged, and with my new thinking about modes of literacy.
I realize now that I was not only learning to produce and consume different kinds of hypertext...but that I was in fact learning to THINK in a different way. To what extent has this affected my thinking throughout my education, and throughout my life thus far? How was my experience as a "wired kid" similar to and different from, say, that of my teenage sister's, and what does this mean for her own critical thinking and writing processes? It's hard to say, but I think it's definitely something worth exploring.
Interestingly, though, I wasn't getting any of this in school - I can't recall any real strong technological presence at any of my schools to speak of, and for that matter, few if any of my friends in school had computers or any real interest in them - although I had many friends who I met through BBSes and such, it still seemed that my techno-life and my "real" life were very separate, and I never made a connection between how my wired activities could be helping or hindering my schoolwork or other facets of my life. It wasn't until junior or senior year of high school that I started to hear more people talking about e-mail addresses and computer games...there was a new intro to computers class, as well as keyboarding....but that was about it. And, since I always seem to have to come back to issues of access, I find myself pondering how strange it was to have been in on the first wave of personal computing, considering our socioeconomic situation. We had a computer, but we didn't have a car, or ...lots of other things. I may explore this more in the future.
From Week 9: Distance and Web-Based Learning
I enjoyed that "Virtual Peer Review" piece, and in fact found some parts that may end up being relevant to my exploration of cyborg theory and cyberspace. Some highlights:
"A frequent criticism of virtual environments is the absence of physical presence. Sometimes, however, the lack of physical presence is confused with lack of presence entirely" (41).
What a great point. Yes. I forget that presence in the rhetorical sense does not depend on physicality. Sure, the absence of a physical, face-to-face presence could at times be a drawback to online education (or online communities in general); but I tend to think the use of words and other digital texts actually can give users more agency in creating a "presence" that is perhaps more authentic (for lack of a better word) than the body.
The subsequent discussion of virtual environments allowing for the disintegration of race, gender, class, etc. is also something I'm interested in, and I appreciated this qualification:
"In using the word 'filter,' Lea and Spears remind us that social cues are not eliminated in virtual environments (as critics might argue) but that they are reduced" (43).
This is a great point. I did some work with Students Right to Their Own Language last year in Sue's class and in my Linguistics class - like it or not, language is socially marked. Sure, we don't have the physical signifiers - skin color, gender, etc. - but language is FAR from being subject to the same kinds of stereotypes and generalizations we make about visual cues. It is a cultural product, after all. HOWEVER...it's awfully difficult to transcend the "limitations" (although I'm not using that in a pejorative way) of the body; I may feel that my femaleness is preventing me from speaking about a particular topic or entering a particular area or whatever, and there's not much I can do to transcend the boundary of my gender. Virtual spaces, however, can allow for this. Hypertext can allow for this. I do not change my body, but I can change my PRESENCE through text - it's a kind of code-switching that is not possible in face-to-face communication.
|
|
| Holy Web Text, Batman! |
[ | |
Posted on September 18, 2006 @ 9:44 pm
| | ] |
Wow. I just finished reading/listening to the Colby et al. article, and I must say that I thought it was da bomb. Yes, I enjoyed it that much.
One thing that struck me as I read it was how it seemed that the success of blogs in that particular class was largely due to the way they were approached as individual spaces - each person was to do to the space what he or she wanted. This freedom may have led to initial discomfort, as Brennan's podcast described; but in the end, it sounds like each student put a considerable - even surprising - amount of his or her self into their blogs...and not surprisingly, this led to meaningful dialogue with each other, and considerable engagement with the course texts (even as the blogs themselves became a course text of sorts).
It's something for me to ponder. I haven't particularly liked using blogs as required components of course work, and until now I was having a hard time figuring out what the problem was. As I "read" the article, though, I realized that two factors might have contributed to this stumbling block: 1) I've used online journals and other kinds of online text (message boards, chats, instant messaging, etc) for many years and have viewed it as a kind of sanctuary. It's entirely likely that I did not respond well to the use of blogs in my classes because it was in a sense an encroachment of my public, academic, work life into what I considered my "private" (even as it was read by others) space. 2) I haven't truly viewed the classroom blog as a creative writing space, but instead lament about how mediocre each blog entry is if it doesn't become an incredibly brilliant display of genius and therefore an instant historical artifact. Which is, of course, never.
Then I started thinking about my own students and how I'm trying to find new ways for them to be able to take more risks and start writing/thinking in new ways, at the same time that they discover how to infuse their writing with their own voices and insights. I use daily freewriting prompts, but aside from that, students don't really have a space where they can really experiment and play with composing. I wonder if technology will let me find such a space for students...?
More later. I just wanted to get this down while it was fresh in my mind. And who knows - maybe I'll take more "risks" in my own blog entries in the future.
P.S.
In case you haven't noticed, I hate the word "blog" and try to avoid it as much as possible. I don't know why, but the term makes my ears bleed.
|
|
| Tasty Week 3 Journal Morsels |
[ | |
Posted on September 05, 2006 @ 10:19 pm
| | ] |
I admit it: it was a bit of a struggle for me to get through the readings for this week. I'm not exactly certain why, as I find many aspects of new media writing fascinating and hope to explore it a great deal this semester.
My entry for this week, then, will be an awkward, somewhat incoherent mixture/mismatchery of responses to Dr. Blair's "Food for Thought" e-mail. I thought I might get brave and try to construct a visual argument, but it's just not happenin' tonight.
The Cyborg Era and narrative: Something about the term makes me bristle, but I must say that I do love the concept. The emphasis on (or "foregrounding" of) individuals, technologies, AND contexts makes a lot of sense and seems like a highly ethical, self-conscious, simultaneously optimistic and critical approach to computer-mediated writing theory and practice. Although I didn't notice a real direct emphasis on narrative in the "Cyborg" piece, I'd imagine narrative plays a key role in such a framework - it grounds analysis in real, human experience at the same time that it contextualizes and historically situates technologies through storytelling. that's an "A" for Cyborgdom.
New media vs. computer-mediated communication: In new media, the technology is not just a means to the typical 8 1/2 X 11, typed and double-spaced end. Instead, new media look to be both a means and an end - the technology helps to create the "text," at the same time that it becomes a material part of the text. One part that really struck me in the "openings & justifications" chapter was a section on page 19: "neither is it 'new media' simply to have a text that incorporates text and sound and graphics and animation and photographs or illustrations in some combinatorial ratio other than that of a traditional academic or literary text. I am trying to get at a definition that encourages us to stay alert to how and why we make these combinations of materials, not simply that we do it." Since the idea of "process" is an important one to writers, it makes sense to me that new media would consider the making-of as important as the final artifact. That's an "A+" for new media.
And Erin's entry for this week? I'll opt for the 111 grading system on this one and give myself a solid "P."
|
|
| from "bound" to "rich" |
[ | |
Posted on August 30, 2006 @ 6:58 pm
| | ] |
My undergraduate institution would probably be considered a "Technology-Bound" institution. While the school had some rather high-end educational technologies - especially in the newly remodeled buildings - there wasn't a really strong sense of "tech" across campus or across disciplines. I still don't know exactly where the computer labs were, and none of my English Department instructors utilized PowerPoint or other technologies to supplement their lectures. In fact, the only time I used PP as an undergrad was in the McNair Program - McNair is where I picked up most of my "technology + education = good" literacy.
As I mentioned to Julie, I think this experience has confined me in certain ways when it comes to my teaching practice. Since I rarely saw my own English teachers utilizing new technologies, I sometimes am a little overcautious when it comes to trying new things in the classroom - I worry about looking stupid, or about things breaking, or about leaving students behind. What I'm realizing, though, is that it is good for me to try new things in the classroom - not only so that I might find innovative ways to enhance what I value about writing and the writing classroom, but also for the simple reason that students benefit from seeing their teacher try something new, even if she's a little nervous about it, and even if there are some bumps along the way.
In my personal life, I've always been fascinated by technology and have used things like BBSes, message boards, instant messaging, etc., as a cornerstone of my social life. I sympathize A LOT with Julie's concern with merging this personal interest in technology with pedagogy; am I using such-and-such technology because I think it's neat? Because it's helpful to my teaching? Because it's helpful to me as a writer? Part of the ethical use of technology in the classroom, I think, means recognizing when something is just not going to work for a particular class, or perhaps should be saved for personal use only. It's a hard reality to accept, especially when one devotes a lot of time to trying to make the technology pedagogically relevant.
|
|
| Initial musings... |
[ | |
Posted on August 30, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
| | ] |
As I read the Edlred and Toner piece, I thought about how I've incorporated technology into my writing courses and how successful those technologies have been in enhancing the writing classroom. The most obvious example would be my use of computer labs - specifically, I always schedule in-class revision time in the lab on the day that I hand back students' commented-on rough drafts. I've been lucky in that I've only had one instance of a student blatantly misusing the time; other than that, students are happy to have time in class to work on their papers when I'm right there to assist them with questions, and the fact that they have just received comments from me pretty much guarantees that everyone has some kind of revision to do. For the most part, it seems students feel more comfortable revising in Microsoft Word than with pen and paper - perhaps they feel it is more "productive," or more "real."
In addition, I'm currently trying out a new pedagogical strategy, somewhat by accident. One of my classes was canceled this week due to a pre-arranged field trip. My intention had been to practice peer response as a large group during class, in preparation for the peer writing groups students will work in this semester. Since many of them have expressed anxiety about commenting on other people's work (and having their own work commented upon), I didn't feel comfortable just skipping this session. Instead, I had students use the discussion board in a manner somewhat similar to how we use them in many graduate classes here - students read the same sample rough draft, posted their answers to a series of questions about the draft, and responded to the postings of at least two other classmates.
Both the computer lab days and the virtual class discussions have been, overall, highly successful. I feel they enhance the more traditional aspects of our writing classrom and give students a chance to utilize important computer literacies at the same time they are advancing their own written literacy.
However, I'm also reminded of a couple important things that are all too easy to forget: 1) Such technology-dependent activities can create uncomfortable situations for students who have less experience with technology in a setting of peers who are highly computer literate. Even more upsetting is the class/race/gender divisions that can be emphasized from such activities. 2) Students who are struggling with or are apprehensive about the technology tend NOT to want to seek help from me or classmates - perhaps because of the aforementioned class/race/gender issues, feelings of inadequacy, etc. 3) Many first-year students are frequently unprepared, unable, or unwilling to adopt the "postcritical" stance Selber suggests, perhaps because technology is so engrained in their everyday life that it is difficult for them to critique it from an academic distance. For example, I used the "Cyberspace and Identity" chapter from Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum last year. On one hand, students had a lot to say about instant messaging and its potential benefits and pitfalls for literacy; but in the discussion of e-mail, blogging, sites like facebook, etc., they stumbled a bit - students struggled with conceptualizing just how much of an impact such technologies have on their lives.
These concerns make me wonder if I might incorporate something like a technology autobiography into my courses here at BGSU. On one hand, the TAs could give me some basic information about each student's experience with and feelings toward technologies. I would be able to more clearly identify a "digital divide" in my classroom and could plan lessons accordingly. Such an autobiography would also help move students toward a more critical stance.
I guess I'll stop there. Fun stuff - I look forward to class.
--Erin
|
|
| First Post |
[ | |
Posted on August 23, 2006 @ 8:32 pm
| | ] |
Here's my first post. Thanks for reading, peeps.
--Erin
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
erin_728's journal
