|
Articles Conference Reviews |
2008E19SzymanskiTeaching and Learning in a Digital Age This session featured Davis Stock (University of Wisconsin), Genevieve Critel (Ohio State University), and Thomas Eaton (Southeast Missouri State University). The three panelists discussed a variety of issues, both theoretical and pedagogical, connected to the incorporation of technology and new media into the composition classroom and curricula. The first presenter, David Stock, discussed the theoretical divide that often emerges between old and new forms of media in his presentation “Remediating Composition Pedagogy in Web 2.0 Era.” Working mostly from Bolter and Grusin’s “Remediation” theory, Stock argued for bridging this divide. He contended that rather than viewing new media as a replacement for old media, it would behoove us to instead see the complex interplay and relationship between old and new media—“media never work in isolation but in relation to one another; there is a constant dialectic.” Stock argued for bringing the theory and connective power of remediation directly into classroom pedagogy by, for example, asking students to reflect on their experiences of composing on similar topics in different media as they examine the differences, similarities, and relationship between media. In the second presentation, “Preparing Graduate Students to Integrate Computers into Composition: Effectiveness of the Workshop Model,” Genevieve Critel discussed the results and implications of an informal study she conducted with her graduate teaching assistants working in computer classrooms. Her study explored the effectiveness of a five-day training workshop that graduate students attended before teaching in one of university’s three computer classrooms, and Critel decided to structure the TA summer training workshop at her university around Cynthia Selfe’s suggestion to examine how technology can help meet student needs and goals. Critel learned from the pre- and post- surveys she collected from the eight workshop attendees that graduate students wanted more training concerning practical, concrete teaching ideas and assignments. She also discovered that TAs were not interested in learning how to use complex software programs; rather, they were more interested in mastering what she termed “low-threshold” technology programs and spending more time discussing practical teaching applications of the technology. Critel concluded by asserting that Selfe’s notion of “small movements” can help those organizing and creating graduate student training programs to stress that technology is often best utilized in the classroom in small ways—in small steps and implementations. Thomas Eaton concluded the presentations with “The ChyleIsle Ocean River Cruise: Sailing into Scripted Scenario Learning,” a discussion of his use of scenario-based writing with non-traditional students enrolled in his literature courses. Basing his work on the theories of role play, interaction, emotive sponsorship, and goal achievement, Eaton argued that scenario-based writing increases interest, engagement, and personal motivation in students. He described his creation of the “ChyleIsle” scenario for his children’s literature course, explaining how students make their way through course work, lessons, concepts, and discussion by playing along with the scenario that they are delivering books to children stranded on an island—ChyleIsle. Students receive a link to the course website at the beginning of the semester, and they must follow along with the map and missions outlined in the scenario’s plotline. While Eaton does provide a set of goals to be accomplished every two weeks, he is not explicit about how students achieve those goals, leaving it up to the individual student to develop his/her own plan of action for completing course work. He argued that while students show resistance to the project’s lack of explicit direction at first, most eventually take the initiative to follow the scenario’s story line and tasks, often finishing the course highly engaged and appreciative of the non-traditional and low-technology setup. In conclusion, it should be noted that the presentations felt somewhat disjointed at first; however, the question and answer session pulled the pieces together with a common thread: teacher interest in the issues surrounding the incorporation of technology in the classroom. Audience questions intimated agreement and pedagogical excitement, and as a whole, explored how all of the presentations connected older more traditional teaching methods with newer technology-infused practices. Audience members and presenters alike focused not on the disjoint or divide between old and new media but rather the connections, interplay, and intimate relationships that exist between the media that can be utilized in the composition classroom. |