• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

200773Webb

Session 7.3: Identity, Prosthesis, and Perspective: A Multi-disciplinary Exploration of Using Technology in the Fist-Year/Introductory Classroom
Reviewed by Suzanne Webb

Juliette M. Ludeker and Wendy K. Z. Anderson (Purdue University)

From the abstract:
“This paper/presentation explores themes we considered during a graduate course on computers in language and writing which resulted in (re)developing our own approaches to and inclusion of electronic/digital technology/ies in teaching our first-year courses. Included is a sample teaching unit designed to allow students to acknowledge and identify their space/contexts (urban, rural, etc.) and to explore the role of electronic/digital technologies in those locales (work, study, and pleasure). The unit specifically focuses on the relationship(s) between technology and identity formation, prosthesis and biological (being(s) (cyborg theories), and technological context(s) and shifting perspective/world view.”

This paper/presentation gave the audience a model assignment sequence which seems to be an impressive exploration into all of the concepts and theories listed above. The handout given the audience by Ludeker and Anderson included a 5-week outline of the entire module (in table form), a narrative overview of the module, a list of deliverables, a list of required (?) readings, and the detailed assignment sheet for the artifacts critique. We (the audience) were given the tools to teach this module!

And this paper/presentation was presented most enthusiastically by these two graduate students. But, what would have made the presentation better? Well, the course has not been taught. We the audience, could have been their pilot class. There was plenty of time for a hands-on activity, and since we had the “Artifacts Critique Assignment” sheet in our hands, we could have broken up into groups of 2 or 3, worked for about 10 minutes, chosen artifacts, and performed a quick analysis to “see how [the artifacts] are constructed and how they act as communication.” Granted, this would not have been a thorough glimpse into the probability of success of this assignment module, but it would have been a glimpse nonetheless. Besides, there being plenty of time for an activity such as this during the panel, it’s possible the audience of scholars in attendance that day could have helped to solidify this assignment’s structure and content, and help find any potential pitfalls. We could have possibly addressed the limitations noted by the presenters—limitations such as material access and the need and/or inability to standardize assessment.

While Ludeker and Anderson excitedly discussed the flexibility, the student-centered approach, the students’ agency, and the reflective piece all built into this one project, their excitement spread into the audience. This unbridled enthusiasm about the assignment sequence and all its possibilities surpassed most panels I’ve attended over the years, and this enthusiasm will surely come to bear in the classroom when Ludeker and Anderson do teach this innovative assignment sequence.

 Comments? 

2007 C and W Reviews Index