The Facebook Papers Structure

March 14, 2011

To experience this webtext, read this note last.

This essay is a network. The content is distributed across the wall, info, and notes sections of the narrator profile, The Facebook Papers, as well as across the pages of 35 authors. The content, but not comments upon it, is listed in reverse chronological order. While experience with the interface of the actual Facebook site may provide readers with a grammar for interacting with a text such as ours, affordances of Facebook and scholarly journals differ. Peer review and authority aside, the distributed nature of forums like Facebook make them prohibitive for delivering scholarly texts, at least so long as scholars value explicitly demonstrated, reasoned, and connected arguments or analyses from which conclusions can seemingly logically follow and be delivered in neat packages.

The Facebook structure foregrounds current posts and it backgrounds the context of content already posted within Facebook. Readers and writers in that forum rely minimally on previous posts in order to convey and understand current posts, extending back maybe a few days but rarely longer. It is most likely that social relationships and experiences outside of Facebook provide context for Facebook posts and that only glimpses of those make it into the forum. By contrast, scholarly journals foreground context and background the unexamined. As we know, readers of scholarly forums expect current work to be developed in context of previous work and they expect that such work has been examined and approved by experts.

Because users of Facebook do not expect to look back even a month in someone else's profile in order to understand a current post, there is almost no probability that they will do so. Even if readers on Facebook did look back, they may not find what they are looking for: Facebook limits how far back people can go, users could have deleted the post, or so much may have occurred since then that it is simply too cumbersome to look. Administrators could store all previous posts, but that would change its role as a tool people use to effectively connect mediated face to mediated face about what is current.

Readers of scholarly essays, on the other hand, expect that authors look back to earlier contexts and that the authors synthesize those contexts into the current text that is then presented in a developed, sustained argument where information in the beginning of the essay and its relationship to other information in the essay build to the conclusion. Authors do the work of collecting appropriate context from multiple sources, adding insights, and preparing them into a substantial but still limited number of linear pages that editors and publishers will put together with other such documents in hopes that they be stored in libraries and offices of authors and colleagues and be seen and read for a lifetime or more.

Peer review, the value for authority, and convention of use as social or professional aside, the peripatetic and distributed nature of conversation in Facebook, the variety of means for communicating there (wall, photos, notes, messages), along with the fact that contexts are often outside of the posts, means that readers would need to be connected with all of it in order for a text to cohere and develop. Moreover, to read and write all of the pieces of our text, all authors and readers of this webtext would need to be friended with the narrator and all authors would need to have their profiles set to "friends of friends can view [this]." All of our authors are not friended with all of our authors (see the profile pages), nor have they all met in real life. If we did not assume a "friends of friends" relationship, the whole text would not even be available to all authors no less to Kairos readers who would not even know to look for them.

This distributed nature of conversation makes communication in Facebook more akin to a scholarly conference than to a scholarly text. The journals, conferences, or social networking sites are forums, while the essay, presentation, and posts are texts. The comparison of text in a journal and that in spaces like Facebook, then, would be a comparison between an essay and a post.

Even so, we set out to write a scholarly essay as though it happened in Facebook, and this process made us confront conflicts between affordances of the forum and the expectations of scholarly essays. This was complicated by the fact that we had so many authors, although we needed at least two to be social in the Facebook sense. To be true to a scholarly essay and meet reader expectations that this would be a focused text, we had to leave out unrelated posts about floating the river or finding the best ice cream on earth. On the other hand, our text was developed over time and, as much as possible, rather than go back to alter content in earlier posts, we either made new posts or commented on old posts. This differs from scholarly essays, which would be revised and refined very carefully until the article went to press. The fact that we went back to comment on older posts is also not true to Facebook. Our text is a remediation of both.

The structure of our text is both and neither a scholarly essay or Facebook experience, and, therefore, readers may not have a grammar for navigating it. The text is presented from the point of view of the composite author, The Facebook Papers, and as they would do in Facebook, individual authors enter the webtext through their mediated selves (constructed in both spaces into particular personas). But our readers are not authors. Readers enter the text through a persona of someone else and, thus, have to situate themselves in the network of text and relationships of authors.

Readers of traditionally published scholarship often expect essays to develop and discuss background information, literature reviews, and—maybe—methods, data, results, discussions, and conclusions. We debated about how to deliver these outside of the scholarly essay genre. Users of Facebook expect immediacy—the quick connection fix—and, thus, most conversation happens across "walls." As such, we dispersed our data and discussions throughout our webtext, mostly in short bits on walls and in comments. We put background information—course apparatus, for instance—and an overall conclusion into notes. These sections rely on the development of information into a unit.

Despite how it may seem because of the distributed nature of our article, our webtext is closer to a scholarly essay than to Facebook most especially because we have used notes for large units of discourse. More of our text happens in notes than on the wall. Our conclusion and this note, for example, could be told through wall and comment conversations, as one would expect in Facebook. When developing our text, some authors wanted notes only for artifacts. This note, for example, seems much too long. Indeed, we are over 1250 words, which would likely not even be read if it were posted in a site that valued immediacy.

Readers do not have a grammar for such remediated text, though. So, although it may not be immediately apparent, we favored the traditional essay more than Facebook. Notes, because they resemble sections of an essay, will seem familiar and, therefore, readers of traditional essays might find some satisfaction by reading our webtext from the notes pages rather than the wall. On the other hand, these readers would likely be dissatisfied because notes are distributed across user pages and also because even as a collection the notes provide only a partial view.

So, after much debate and with some hesitation, here is a table of contents, a familiar textual element, to our notes that provides more of our essay than many of the authors would like and less than what many of the readers would like:

• When MySpace becomes OurSpace: Student Identity & Facebook
  (on The Facebook Papers profile page; although this is Evelyn's note--she could not have posted it because she was not yet a Facebook user and, thus, the narrator had to post on her behalf)
• On Facebook & Friends
  (on The Facebook Papers profile page; although this is Evelyn's note--she could not have posted it because she was not yet a Facebook user and, thus, the narrator had to post on her behalf)
• Kenneth Burke on Unity/Identity
  (on The Facebook Papers profile page; although this is Evelyn's note--she could not have posted it because she was not yet a Facebook user and, thus, the narrator had to post on her behalf)
• Writing, Culture, & Technology
  (on Deb Balzhiser's profile page)
• What is a Residential College?
  (on The Facebook Papers profile page)
• A Focus on Learning
  (on The Facebook Papers profile page)
• Context for the Facebook Paper Unit
  (on Deb Balzhiser's profile page)
• The Facebook Papers Unit Prompt
  (on Deb Balzhiser's profile page)
• Apparatus, Peer Review and Self Evaluation
  (on Deb Balzhiser's profile page)
• Course Description, Objectives, & Standards
  (on The Facebook Papers profile page)
• Observations
  (on The Facebook Papers profile page)
• Student Technology Survey
  (on Evelyn Lauer's profile page)
• Conclusion
  (on The Facebook Papers profile page)
• The Facebook Papers Structure
  (on The Facebook Papers profile page)
• References
  (see the Reference tab at The Facebook Papers profile page)

Conclusion

March 11, 2011

The purpose of this project was to explore and document one approach for integrating social media--Facebook, really--into freshman writing. The assignment using Facebook was first given in 2006 and twice more through 2009. The assignment seemed to help students effectively synthesize, develop arguments, and begin to use observation for research. The assignment helped students become more aware of their public personas, and many of them changed some of their uses of social media. However, it was not as effective at helping students think about social networking at a cultural level, but in reexamining the unit, it becomes clear that the assignment provided few activities toward this end.

The assignment was given in a course with a common syllabus and within an environment of suspicion regarding Facebook; therefore, it was of primary importance that the assignment be developed and structured in a way so that others could see that it facilitated the writing program goals of creating strong theses and topic sentences and their development within an essay. The class had many first-generation college students, and, by self-report, about half of the students either hated writing or described themselves as "not very good at writing." Within this context, Deb and Evelyn, who initiated this project, had several goals: meet the writing program expectations, increase the focus on rhetorical aspects of writing, help students feel more confident and successful, and help students improve their writing knowledge and skill. That students were assigned to analyze each other and articulate their findings publicly helped them quickly realize rhetorical aspects of writing--and of their personas.

In many ways, Deb and Evelyn used the awareness of the explosion of Facebook among the student population in an attempt to garner student interest in the assignment and, thus, they hoped, the writing for that assignment. They hoped for quick successes and increased motivation or interest among students. Using a communication medium with which many students already intimately connected seemed like one way to do this. Using a familiar medium also seemed to address the concern that writing skills can seem to suffer when writers have competing cognitive demands (see, for example, Torrance, 1999). Deb and Evelyn thought that the student connections with the social media might be used as a defense against such an outcome and, thus, increase the chances of quick successes on assignments throughout the unit. As such, Deb and Evelyn argued, the class could then use student successes as a base for examining more deeply and critically rhetorical aspects of communication and media. Anecdotally at least, students seemed more motivated and interested in this assignment than on others. Academically, there was not a significant difference in grades within this class or in comparison to other sections taught by the same faculty members, at least not when accounting for the fact that Residential College students already tend to obtain higher grade point averages than other freshman (even if they didn't come in with higher GPAs). It was important to Deb and Evelyn, however, that students were interested and motivated. There were fewer absences and fewer instances of late work during the Facebook unit.

When this assignment was first given in 2006, Facebook was novel. People were still figuring out what the "thing" is. In addition, Facebook features and structures have changed during the time of our project. This has implications for the future of this assignment. Deb and Evelyn have mixed feelings about whether or not they would use this Facebook assignment again. When they began the project, students rarely used privacy controls in Facebook and many of them had the goal of obtaining as many friends as possible. It reminded some of us [older authors] that in the early nineties owners of websites used higher "hit counts" as a primary measure of success. Now, almost all students set their profiles to private and do not consider a higher friend count to be the primary objective. Therefore, it would be a questionable practice to assign a project in which student success depended on access to a peer's profile. The assignment could be changed by having students analyze the pages of public profiles; however, that takes away some of the investment students would otherwise have when they were examining themselves, their classmates, and their hall mates. Alternatively, students could examine an "up and coming" communications medium.

Observations

July 20, 2010

When we asked students to write about the ethos of a self as mediated through Facebook and to put that into a cultural context, we were not sure what we would find. We knew we were at an important sociotechnical moment. Across the three years of first-year writing, students were asked to examine another person's online identity and we saw some ways the process of identification may manifest in what might seem to be quotidian student responses to assignments.

When we asked first-year students to analyze and write about a peer based on the information in a social networking site, we knew we were asking students who were already part of the sociotechnical moment to consider identity even more intensely and explicitly. Students already worry about making friends and fitting in and now they are asked to publicly characterize another person for a grade. This assignment creates tension between the desire to identify--to connect--with the peer and the desire to successfully complete the assignment. The paper presents a complex rhetorical task that is, indeed, an act of at least double identification.

These rhetorical performances become further complicated because this assignment requires that students rely especially on their own primary research, which is likely new for many of them. They do not have experts to back up or make their claims about their peers so they are asked to trust themselves. Together, these factors could evoke a diminished perceived self-efficacy, as has been noted by scholars such as Mike Rose who examine writer's block. This is where the processes of collaborative learning, in Bruffee (1984) and Vygotsky's (1978) sense of the term, demonstrate that they are responsible for their own learning. It also shows that they already have skills for analyzing peers on Facebook and thus analytical skills to use in college and writing. It also demonstrates the power of conversation in constructing knowledge.

Here are some moments of doubt or dissonance about identification when completing assignments and ways students responded to them. These moments are the opportunities for engaging learning.

Concern for Personal Reputation

When Deb gave the Facebook Paper assignment during class, students' questions indicated concern for their personal reputations: They worried about how people would perceive them based on their profiles. This is seen especially among Kym, Tisha, Christine, and Eileen who worry that they might be misjudged as "sleeping around" because they have photos of themselves with different guys, or they worry that they might be perceived as being lesbians because they list "women" as their interest.

At first their questions may seem directed at the assignment itself, but these questions point directly at reputation and perception rather than at details, interpretations, or expectations of the assignment. Identification with their mediated identities--a social concern--becomes a higher priority than the assignment--an academic concern. Not only is this an opportunity for collaborative learning to help them feel safer socially, it prepares them to think about themselves academically; it is an opportunity to demonstrate how they actively constructed their identities and while they may have done so for one audience--in this case guys they don't want to "creep" on them--they have also done so for people with whom they may potentially and actually want to connect. It is not that they have been ignorant about audience in their mediated spaces but that they may not have thought about related issues so specifically, and they likely hadn't thought about how such thinking transfers to support them in their academics.

Concern for (at Least Perceived) Competency

Dissonance became evident in discussions about the assignment and then within student writing. Although students responded in different ways, they seem to share an underlying concern that they would be misjudged about their social or academic competencies based on something out of their control.

Within the writing, a few authors questioned their own analytic competency before readers did it for them, and they tried to protect social connections by undermining their own competency before an informal peer review did it for them. James, for example, writes: "Although I only perceive Christine as a third party . . . My perceptions may be wrong" (p. 3). Unfortunately this response was not an astute rhetorical ability to hedge claims. It reveals some true self-doubt, an observation supported more fully by class comments.

Recognizing James' sentences as speaking loudly about his self-efficacy rather than a statement about his writing ability presents a learning opportunity for faculty who can call upon peers to help him see competence. For students like James, learning still occurs across assignments, although there is a greater urgency for what Vygotsky (1978) refers to as a learning intervention. The students in these three classes who responded like James had social as well as academic doubts. At least for James, as revealed in several small ways during different activities, conducting the research caused slight anxiety. Having to "judge" a peer caused a bit of writer's block. These two responses, when combined with the fact that James already thought of himself as maybe an inadequate writer, led to increasing anxiety particularly because he knew he might be asked to share his work. Together, these led him to feel slightly inadequate. "My perceptions may be wrong," we came to realize, translated to: "I think I might be wrong and if I just tell people that first, I save social face and hopefully receive some grace when my writing is assessed." It may seem counterintuitive, but by talking about his paper with the class (which in that moment surely heightened anxiety) and prompting them to identify strengths in his work, public conversations that he did not want to have actually provided an increased recognition of his abilities.

Eddie diverts attention away from what he feels may be interpreted as incompetence by pointing to the medium as the agent of error, not Facebook users or student authors. He clarifies that "one can be perceived wrong through these services" (p. 1). Like other students who want to blame perception on the medium, after each topic sentence he reminds us that the services could mislead us. Another student begins with a sweeping statement that serves to undermine the credibility of the medium: "With the great popularity in America, many raise the question of legitimacy in this way of communicating and interacting" (Charlie, p. 1), and the essay serves to make this point rather than analyze a Facebook profile.

Such sentences reveal dissonance and possibly diminished self-efficacy, although not to the degree that we saw in James. Through class activities, students can peripatetically find increasing recognition of their abilities. These sentences also reveal what some might call "teaching moments," but we prefer to call "learning opportunities." The class can discuss what it means to "give" agency to technology and for students to recognize their own agency. They can examine features and uses of communications media in relationship to communications themselves. This is a moment computers & writing folks hope presents itself. Students could analyze what might be attributed to media, to mediated communications, and to identity within mediated spaces. By immersing themselves in the topic, students can begin to realize how the community conversations define learning, knowing, and writing. In so doing, they might see how conversations can lead to more accurate and more articulate analyses and consequently stronger writing.

In another type of response to dissonance, some students blame potential errors in analyses on the person who owns the Facebook profile. "We can only see what the other person chooses to post. Therefore it is hard to conclude who anyone really is over the internet" writes Hannah (p. 4), who is not unlike Trent who writes that "Facebook, in general, allows only a limited view of an individual's personality" and, therefore, we "are subject to whatever that individual decides to disclose" (p. 1). These students seek perceived competency by blaming any errors on others. Dean seems to have a greater understanding that the medium and its users may play a role but that the availability of evidence that is at issue: "Though any of these allegations could be true, I do not have enough valid evidence to back up that allegation" (p. 2).

These students had greater efficacy than students mentioned so far. They hinted in class and homework assignments that they aimed to identify with readers based on academic competence. To better ensure such outcomes, they made it clear that they could not present the whole picture because they were not privy to the whole picture. They indicated to readers that the responsibility for presenting that whole picture was not theirs. These papers present opportunities to examine the formation and acceptance of knowledge within communities, the nature of knowledge being partial, and the roles of writing.

By focusing on how published writing has been crafted to represent constructed knowledge, students examine the limited frameworks from which authors have worked. They can help each other identify and describe those frameworks, their scope, and their limitations in terms of what can be known or said. Students can begin to internalize such thinking as part of normal discourse. They can reflect on how they had to investigate the Facebook profile in terms of its parts, but then, as Trent and Dean point out, even through thorough investigations we can only see so much. Perhaps they will recognize such a hedge as important to articulating analyses. One may argue that these students already demonstrated understandings of limited perspectives and hedging. They may or may not have the understanding they seem to demonstrate. If it were true that these students fully understood partial perspective it would seem doubtful they would feel the need to blame someone else for not providing a full perspective. Their words in context indicate how they connect to writing. By hearing their words we can learn how to create opportunities to increase their participation in disciplinary conversations about writing where they might come to hedge not out of anxiety but as part of constructing the partial perspective for readers and indicating its boundaries.

Concern for Academic Discourse

Sammy's analysis of a Facebook profile portrays what it might look like when a student begins participating in academic discourse about writing but has not fully internalized what he sees in those conversations. Sammy follows the claim and support structure of argument quite carefully; however, he makes erroneous claims or at least claims that seem unwarranted based on the evidence he provides. Because he follows the structure of argument but his claims about Angie seem unsupported by the evidence, it seems that his motive is to please or at least to not offend while at the same time dutifully addressing the assignment requirements. Regardless of the reasons behind his seemingly erroneous claims, it is important to recognize such incongruencies not as errors of writing or analysis but as signs of transitioning social and academic selves.

Sammy's thesis is that Angie "seems like a sweet, gentle girl who likes to have a good time with her friends" (p. 3), and he repeats "sweet and gentle" five times in an approximately 400 word essay. He provides three specific details to demonstrate Angie's sweet and gentle nature: music, cars, and a passion for baseball. First, Angie's sweet and gentle nature comes from an observation that she is into "some pretty hardcore rock" (p. 1), although she is "into the classics as well. Korn and Guns N' Roses seem to be her favorites" (p. 2). As evidence of this subclaim, Sammy observes that Angie's MySpace background proudly displays Axl Rose, lead singer of Guns N' Roses, and that she recently attended Motley Crüe and Aerosmith concerts. Considering that Guns N' Roses have an album titled Appetite for Destruction (1987), songs about burying someone in the backyard (Guns N' Roses, 1988) (even tongue and cheek this is not "sweet" humor), and lyrics such as "I'm gonna watch you bleed" (1987), "Strapped in the chair of the city's gas chamber/Why I'm here I can't quite remember" (1987), and "Captain America's been torn apart" (1987), and with Motley Crüe having albums titled Too Fast for Love (1981), Shout at the Devil (1983), Theatre of Pain (1985), and Generation Swine (1997), it could be difficult to see how being into "hardcore rock" such as Guns N' Roses portrays Angie as "sweet and gentle."

Next, Sammy determines Angie's sweet and gentle nature by her status as a "die hard baseball fan" (p. 2). He explains how she bothered to include the names of her favorite teams. He digs deeper into this claim by providing a warrant. He argues that because she is from Texas, you "would think she would be an Astros fan or a Ranger fan. The fact that she lists teams other than these as favorites, "she must be more than a 'bandwagoner'" (p. 2). "Besides," he argues, "she even posts pictures of players that she took herself rather than downloaded from somewhere" (p. 2). Together, you see that Sammy works to provide claims, supports, and warrants even if "die hard" does not support "sweet and gentle." While baseball does not exclude the sweet and gentle, it also does not inherently demonstrate such characteristics.

To complete his tri-part case, Sammy offers the evidence that Angie is "into muscle cars" and even owns and drives a classic Mustang. Besides the fact that cars are generally a large mass that can travel at high speeds producing a huge impact that can result in death from an accident, the fact that Sammy emphasizes "muscle" car, not just car, seems to present conflicting views about Angie.

Concern for Conversation

One student who appealed to readers academically and socially initially worried that her social status in the class--or lack thereof--would negatively affect her ability to be successful, particularly on this assignment. That section was designated as "co-enrolled" for Residential College students, and Dara was not a Residential College student. In part because of this, in part because she is an attentive student, and in part because she values conversation, Dara visited Deb's office hours a number of times. At first she expressed concerns over not being part of Residential College and also about adjusting to university generally. During the Facebook paper unit, Dara asked about ways she might approach her analysis and she talked through different types of observations she had made. The quality of her writing reflects Dara's value of conversation. It demonstrates what she gained from conversations and a knowledge of conversing with audiences, in this case both academic and peer (social).

Dara wrote about how much Corey must be in love with his girlfriend. She commented, and later read her paper to the class: "11 posts that immediately show up on [Corey's] wall, five of them are from his girlfriend and they all contain the words 'I love you'" (p. 2). Corey's "About Me" section says, "there is only one person who really understands me, my girl" (p. 2). Originally, Dara also wondered if she should not write about his relationship. When asked if that was one of the main observations that emerged from her analysis, she said yes. She continued documenting this dimension of Corey, at least until four days (two class periods) before the final draft was due when she asked quietly before class began what she should do if Corey was now listed as "single." She wondered if she could still write about it and, if she did, if she had to revise her whole analysis. Now we were really talking about the realities of observation, analysis, and narratives accounting for them.

Dara's final version ended with a meta-analysis based on the new information. She explained that the couple "called it quits" and that Corey removed his relationship status altogether, removed every wall post his ex-girlfriend ever wrote, and changed his profile picture to one without her. The night before the paper was due, the relationship was back on. This made Dara reflect on their previous profile pictures:

"Ironically, or planned, I can't be sure; both of their individual pictures are from the prom that they spent together. This leads me to believe that their relationship is regressing back to high school. I can only imagine that in high school they spent a lot more time together and in turn had a stronger relationship. Since Corey is now in college, away from home and [his girlfriend], they have become less confident in the relationship they once had and are trying to save the connection they once had with each other" (p. 4). Since reuniting, his girlfriend wrote on Corey's wall, but neither changed their photos to a couple photo.

After she read her paper in class, Corey admitted that Dara got it. Since he was away at school, he wanted to be more his own person and, thus, their relationship suffered. He loved her but they were unsure about how to be together, although they were trying. The only student who admitted to not knowing most of the others in class was one of only two students to delve into deeper analyses.

Concern for Our Competency

It is possible to argue that such responses are typical and thus require no special attention. But it is precisely because the results are typical that attention is warranted. When looking through the lens of identification, it is possible to argue that routine and occasionally subpar responses may indicate that neither demonstrating competence nor effort are of primary concern to students. Even sentences perfunctorily tapped onto keyboards are more than that. These sentences are parts of larger conversations that happen in bits and pieces throughout homework, class discussions, comments under the breath, and the class that provide us with insights about the authors identity, efficacy, and relationship to writing. It may be that in the seeming quotidian sentences we find our strongest learning opportunities.

Course Description, Objectives, & Standards

February 28, 2007

The department has a common syllabus for first-year writing that includes a course description, objectives, and grading standards that all instructors must follow, including Deb, in the course in which the Facebook assignment was given.

Departmental Course Description

In first-year English, students study the principles of expository writing—the kind of objective, audience-directed prose used in college and beyond to explain and defend ideas. Because reading, viewing, and writing are inextricably linked, first-year English also emphasizes critical reading and viewing, teaching students to analyze and understand a variety of texts, including visual images and your own writing.

First-year English has long been a cornerstone requirement in the undergraduate curriculum because of its practical value in the classroom and on the job. At Texas State, the requirement also looks beyond the practical. It aims to discipline thought and expression, giving you the opportunity to study the art of writing and its intrinsic worth.

Departmental Course Objectives

The department has one common syllabus for College Writing I and College Writing II. Experienced faculty members may design their own course, but they must select a textbook from a department-approved list and the course must be designed to meet the following objectives:

Department objectives for college writing I:

After completing English 1310, you should be able to draft, revise, and edit a paper for a particular audience and purpose in which you demonstrate the ability to:

• formulate a thesis (central idea);
• develop that thesis in an orderly way;
• form clear and effective paragraphs and sentences;
• use an appropriate vocabulary;
• apply the grammatical and mechanical conventions of written English; and
• apply critical reading skills to your own writing and to the writing of others.

Department objectives for college writing 2:

After completing English 1320, you should be able to draft, revise, and edit papers in which you demonstrate the ability to:

• understand and analyze a variety of texts;
• quote, paraphrase, and summarize print and/or online sources to support your ideas; and
• use standard procedures of citation and documentation.

Departmental grading standards

The department syllabus lists grading standards for first-year writing, which we've put into a table in order to make it easier to compare level descriptors for each criterion.

Criterion	A: OUTSTANDING WORK (is distinguished from a B through command and consistency)	B: SURPASSES REQUIREMENTS (an absence of errors does not necessarily warrant a B)	C: SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE (demonstrates positive qualities and avoids serious errors)	D: UNSATISFACTORY (demonstrates positive qualities and avoids serious errors)	F: UNACCEPTABLE (flawed by one or several of the following)
Audience	Engages Holds reader's attention Invites rereading
Level of Thought	Shows originality of thought Consistently demonstrates critical reading skills	Shows originality of thought complexity of thought (than C) development (than C) Generally demonstrates critical reading skills	Satisfactorily demonstrates critical reading skills	Demonstrates weaknesses in critical reading skills	Failure to follow the assigned topic Fails to demonstrate critical reading skills
Development and Organization	Clearly a superior performance according to the criteria of logical development of a central idea Shows imaginative competence in development of the material	Surpasses the C paper by demonstrating a higher level of effectiveness in the organization and development of a central idea	Presents a central idea that is adequately developed competently organized	Weakness in establishing or developing a central idea	Fails to conceive state develop a central idea
Style	Consistently fluent distinctive Clearly a superior performance according to the criteria of clarity of expression	Generally fluent Sustains clarity in expression	Selects appropriate words Uses and avoids flaws of conventional written English Generally clear	Serious errors in construction of paragraphs sentences	Serious repeated errors in paragraph development sentence construction
Mechanics: Spelling, Punctuation, and Grammar	Consistently polished	Generally polished	Avoids flaws in construction of paragraphs sentences	Serious errors in grammar spelling mechanics of written expression	Serious repeated errors in grammar spelling mechanics of written expression

A Focus on Learning

February 28, 2007

As is likely true of many courses designed by Kairos readers, this course is designed from a learning versus a teaching perspective. We discuss two views of learning that inform the sections of freshman writing in which the Facebook Paper assignment was given: a learning paradigm and conversation as learning.

A Learning Paradigm

Learning classrooms can look different than teaching classrooms. To demonstrate this point, Robert B. Barr and John Tagg (1995) share an experience of a faculty member who was about to be observed. The observer came into the class, witnessed groups of students working on projects, then said, in short, "I'll come back on a day when you are teaching."

Barr and Tagg (1995) synthesized existing conversations about learning into an influential piece that appealed to administrators: "A college is an institution that exists to provide instruction. Subtly but profoundly we are shifting to a new paradigm: A college is an institution that exists to produce learning. This shift changes everything" (p. 13). These paradigms differ epistemologically. A teaching paradigm has come to be associated with the "sage on the stage" (King, 1993) where the sage is the subject matter expert and the stage is the podium. From this platform, the sage transmits (the professor professes) the appropriate and appropriate amount of knowledge to students who often memorize and repeat it. Improving education in this model often means improving the subject matter expert. Although compositionists may not use the term "learning paradigm," they are already familiar with it, so these selected characteristics explained in Barr and Tagg's "From Teaching to Learning" likely seem familiar:

• Knowledge is active and constructed.
• Faculty co-produce learning with students.
• Students continue to modify in order to improve.
• Students have responsibility for their own learning.
• Students demonstrate learning by showing they can understand and act within "knowledge-based intellectual frameworks."

Allison King (1993) referred to an educator in this model as a "guide on the side" p. 30). Improving education in this model, Barr and Tagg (1995) argue, means improving learning environments. Here are some ways we identify that composition instructors establish learning environments that could reflect key elements of Barr and Tagg's framework:

Conversation as Learning

In the decade and a half preceding Barr and Tagg's article, a learning model was already developing in conversations about teaching writing. Kenneth Bruffee's "Collaborative Learning and the 'Conversation of Mankind'" (1984) seems to succinctly capture and forward the spirit and understanding of those conversations. Let us briefly walk through his argument in order to map thinking in composition onto what has been put forward as a learning paradigm. A main frame for Bruffee's argument is that learning and knowledge are social, that education should, thus, rely on conversations to help students learn accepted knowledge (normal discourse), and that new knowledge comes when there is no longer consensus and people must converse in order to rearticulate what the group is as well as what it knows and/or values. Given this backdrop, Bruffee stated that we need to think about education as a social process and that such collaborative learning might "challenge fairly deeply the theory and practice of traditional classroom teaching" (p. 638).

The idea that thought and knowledge are social was not new. At the time Bruffee was writing his article, numerous communities were coming to describe understanding, knowledge, and thought in that way. In order to demonstrate the need for a new approach to education, Bruffee synthesized work especially from philosophy, psychology, anthropology, education, literature, and writing (although the idea was, of course, not fully accepted within disciplines). Because Bruffee's belief that we need a new approach to education stemmed from this idea about thought and knowledge that some either did not understand or believe or that others did not see as connected to changes in education, he needed to explain his premise. Although the concept of knowledge as being social and active is now more widely accepted, especially among readers of Kairos, it is worth remembering the case because it is also a case for a learning paradigm.

Bruffee (1984) begins with the premise that making knowledge--learning--is a "process of socially justifying belief" (p. 646). He argues that English teachers need to approach education through such processes, as can be done through collaborative learning. To explain learning as social, Bruffee uses the work of philosopher Michael Oakeshott who states that humans differ from animals because humans can have ongoing conversations. Thus, we may reason that if humans can and do have ongoing conversations then humans are social. Bruffee moves to connect social to thought through anthropologist Clifford Geertz whose fieldwork led him to conclude that "human thought is consummately social" in its origins, functions, form, and applications. Bruffee then ties learning to the social through psychologist Lev Vygotsky's observations that we learn by internalizing external social interactions. Taken together, Bruffee sees that to think well is to converse well and to converse well is to collaboratively learn to develop social contexts and communities. Furthermore, to think and converse well—to learn—is to defend and negotiate a belief or understanding in such a way that it is or becomes accepted within specific contexts and communities. We learn through conversation and interaction and we come to know based on the negotiations.

For this discussion, the need to justify beliefs within a community derives especially from Richard Rorty's (1979) Kuhnian discussion of normal and abnormal discourse. In each case, as developed from the premises of previous discourse, people understand and measure themselves according to others in an interpretive community. When engaged in normal discourse, participants communicate based on shared values, assumptions, and conventions. Normal discourse, Bruffee explains, serves to "justify belief to the satisfaction of other people within the author's community of knowledgeable peers" (1984, p. 643). Abnormal discourse occurs when community members no longer share consensus of "rules, assumptions, goals, values, or mores" (p. 648). Abnormal discourse serves to call into question or even "undermine" normal discourse (Bruffee, 1984, p. 648). For Rorty, inquiry occurs in the tensions and chasms between normal and abnormal discourse. Conversations within such tensions serve to reestablish and rearticulate the community, and, as a result, new knowledge is created.

Bruffee (1984) argues that undergraduate education should facilitate conversations among peers and faculty that lead to consensus within a community's normal discourse. Bruffee and colleague John Trimbur agree that students learn more than just discourse and eventually do more than normalize. Students should learn "something about how this social transition takes place," which means realizing "how it involves crises of identity and authority" (p. 649). Students need to learn how we can act and they need to learn that we "must perform as conservators and agents of change, as custodians of prevailing community values and as agents of social transition and reacculturation" (p. 650). These understandings occur through continuous collaborative learning.

In terms of a learning paradigm, Bruffee's call for deeply rethinking education through a lens of collaborative learning demonstrates knowledge as co-produced through continuous social interactions and conversations, thus, as active and constructed. If we explicitly recognize educators as engaging in conversations with students, it also demonstrates how faculty co-produce learning with them. And if we understand conversations as continuous justifications and modifications within a community then one role of educators is to help students join communities and to see how conversations there are part of constructed intellectual frameworks. To learn to write is to go beyond learning to compose discrete essays that meet genre requirements. To learn, particularly to learn to write, means to learn to effectively engage in conversations and communities, which the assignment and Residential College are designed to help students do.

With this epistemology of thought and knowledge as social, students are responsible for learning. From Bruffee's perspective, informed by scholars, researchers, and philosophers who marked a cultural shift, students become agents in their learning as they begin engaging in conversations. As Barr and Tagg (1995) clarify, this is not to say that institutions, administrators, faculty, and staff play no role or bear no weight of responsibility: They create learning opportunities and environments. Students "can and must, of course, take responsibility for their own learning" because "no one else can" (p. 15). For Bruffee, this means engaging in conversations of normal discourse. For Barr and Tagg, taking responsibility refers to setting one's own goals, acting to achieve those goals, and continuously modifying to better reach those goals. To be clear, being responsible for setting outcomes and working toward achieving them, Barr and Tagg stated, "is not to guarantee the outcome, nor does it entail the complete control of relevant variables" (p. 15).

The need for being more learner-centered is real. Many first-year students are becoming disengaged, and the first-year experience sets the tone. First-year students rate their adjustment to academic demands as "somewhat successful" but their first-year grades are lower than their high school GPAs. Students rated themselves as having a lower level of effective study skills or academic abilities, particularly math, even though they spend more time on homework since high school. Less obvious but with potentially greater significance, students identified their first-year academic experience as "neither relevant nor engaging" and, in fact, were frequently bored and uninspired. This is particularly true among commuter students. Students respond by skipping class, arriving late, turning assignments in late, or completing their assignments at a subpar level. "Faculty and academic staff need to continue to find ways to make first-year coursework meaningful to students and engage students intellectually" (Keup & Stolzenberg, 2004, pp. 59-60). Faculty can blame students or they could, instead, focus on engaging students in learning.

What is a Residential College?

November 16, 2006

Because Deb lived in a freshman residence hall and because two of the three classes in which she administered the assignment were for Residential College, it may help to understand Residential College. At her institution, ResColl is designed in part to help students develop academic identities.

Historically, residential colleges have created spaces for students and faculty to live, dine, socialize, and learn together. Frances Arndt (1993) explained them as "a place of community for new students" that has "traditionally been concerned with the goal of aiding students and other participants in connecting their past with a new present, their private concerns with the demands of an academic program, and their individual education with the education of others" (p. 49).

The Texas State program is known for co-enrolled courses where hallmates attend classes together. In our program, students also spend a specific number of hours on co-curricular activities in designated categories including social, interpersonal, wellness, diversity, global leadership, and academic. Students also complete a specific number of community service hours, which many do by volunteering at the humane society, cleaning up the river, or participating in Habitat for Humanity. Students can receive some credit for engaging in campus activities such as lectures, sporting events, student organizations, or plays.

Our Faculty in Residence lives in a freshman residence hall to help students see the human side of faculty and to encourage students to talk with faculty. A Faculty in Residence helps students connect with the campus and serves as a mentor, a model, and resource. In our program, a Faculty in Residence holds office hours in the residence hall, conducts at least two major programs (or multiple minor programs) each semester, invites participation from other faculty, and invites and attends some programs put on by staff and students.

Our Faculty Coordinator arranges with departments for students in the program (about 430) to co-enroll in three to five general education courses, usually selecting from among first-year composition, history, philosophy, fine arts requirement, and communications (speech), or math when feasible. A faculty coordinator also attends freshman orientation sessions throughout the summer to welcome students, help them better understand Residential College, and to help them register for classes.

Kenneth Burke on Unity/Identity

April 15, 2006

This is the last note from Evelyn regarding her initial interest in this project.

In short, Burke (1950) believed that people are born apart from each other and are, therefore, divided by biology and then by social class and hierarchies. Consequently, people aim for unity. Burke wrote in Rhetoric of Motives (1950), if people "were not apart from one another there would be no need for the rhetorician to proclaim their unity" and if they "were wholly and truly of one substance" then "absolute communication" would be of everyone's "very essence" (p. 22). Burke believed biological class and hierarchical difference cause guilt because we cannot at once differ from others while also fully supporting the order and authorities of hierarchies. He asserted that because of such differences we feel guilty and, therefore, aim for unity.

Unity, or the "state of being consubstantial" (Burke, 2005, p. 41) with others, happens through identification. This state, where a person can identify oneself with like-minded others and at the same time be unique in his or her own identification, emerges from two main processes: naming a thing or person according to its main substance or characteristics and then either connecting or disconnecting according to shared characteristics.

The concept of identification exists within an understanding of language as symbolic action, where people use language to define characteristics and to act. When people post a Facebook message on a person's "wall," they metaphorically "tag" that wall with graffiti to leave a personal mark or expression. The symbolic actions also reach beyond language in these sites. When Facebook users "friend" someone, as an example, they perform communicative acts to associate or disassociate with others. The construction of identity on Facebook, where each person can connect to all sorts of groups and friends and display such affiliation in their own personal space seems to exemplify Burke's theories.

On Facebook & Friends

April 15, 2006

This is Evelyn's note.

Facebook is an online community that used to limit membership to college students, then to high school students, then to those with company emails, but currently, "anyone can join." It should be noted that Facebook widened the circles because of increasing demands to "join." Despite how we might feel about social networking sites, Facebook is vital in our students' lives. Brenda, the student mentioned earlier, says she has "177 friends at Texas State University and around 550 friends [in her Facebook account] altogether!" She said that of these "friends," she does not personally know about 75 of them. To the Facebook user, the definition of "friend" includes those "met" online. The process is even called "friending." Twenty-five million people have Facebook accounts—and these numbers are increasing at unprecedented and unpredictable rates, and by the time this is published they will already be outdated. One-hundred thousand new members register on Facebook.com every day. These statistics capture the attention of just about every print media giant from the New York Times to Vanity Fair to Newsweek, where trend articles about social networking sites keep appearing. The purpose of these sites is to keep users connected, allowing them to chat online, meet new people, keep in touch with old friends and family, and find love, among other things. The goal, as Burke said before this particular application appeared, is unity.

When MySpace becomes OurSpace: Student Identity & Facebook

April 15, 2006

This is Evelyn's note.

"Facebook improved my social life," said Kelly, who went on to explain how excited she gets when people "request" to be her friend. These sites encourage their users to become "friends" with each other; as most of you probably know, you read someone's profile and if you think she sounds cool, you "invite" her to become your friend. Another student, Brenda, says that she spends an hour and a half each day on Facebook: "It is addicting!!" she says, "It's fun and seriously a quick way to get a message out—most people check Facebook more than they listen to their phone messages." Kelly and Brenda seem to be among typical Facebook users. Of course, there are extremes on both ends: One student admitted to spending between three and four hours a day on both sites while another said he only spends between 15 and 30 minutes.

Regardless of the amount of time students spend on social networking sites such as Facebook, we cannot ignore how they affect our students' lives, including their schoolwork. Using Kenneth Burke's "identification" theory (Burke, 1950), we might come to understand how to work within the students' social realm to help them create academic identities and habits.