Clark & Ivanic Politics of Writing ’97

Robin, 4, Ivanic & Clark, Writing Processes and Practices p 81-106

This article illuminates the difference between the chaotic writing process as a linear form and their proposed refined and expanded chaotic writing practice as an integrated form. The authors, have taken apart the subtleties connected to writing process in general by detailing the “when and how we write” contexts to clarify linear models.

It is not especially easy reading, but it’s not quite excruciating either. If you stick with it to the end, you can see the point they’re driving at, though there may have been a quicker way to get there. The diagrams go a long way to clarifying the concept, their explanation of the organization they suggest lies at the heart of why they think this approach an improvement, or at least a more accurate perspective than earlier models.

My difficulty is I do not see practical applications for the instruction of writing in an educational setting, the authors allude to college writing early in the article, though I don’t see their model-they’re-not-calling-a-model (98) with its flow and ebb as more than slightly applicable to post-secondary teaching. They do use a contextualized example very well to demonstrate the applications in personal or professional writing situations of less-defined time restraints. But if the authors are suggesting this is the model that should be reflected in curriculum, a suggested theory of how to implement or modify would have been appreciated; other than broad time restraints (which don’t work as well as you would think in secondary schools) possible adaptations for assessment are not apparent.

I found interesting the early comparisons between writing and speaking and the spontaneity of each and the advantages and disadvantages between the situational contexts, I hadn’t really given much earlier thought to why these situation’s differences lead me to a preference of one over the other depending on circumstances (I dread speaking – most of the time). I’m glad the authors articulated that interesting nugget; although it probably wasn’t necessary, as the main difference, the opportunity to revise beforehand in writing, is the rather obvious difference.  It isn’t clear to me why they chose this topic to headline their main topic, of discussing in detail the writing models, because it seems to me more like a friction fit. But, as I said, it was interesting in a sidebar kind of way.   

New London G., A Pedagogy of Mulitliteracies: Designing Social Futures

 The New London Group article really stuck to its thesis statement, “…define generally the mission of education…fundamental purpose is to ensure that all students benefit from learning in ways that allow them to participate fully in public, community, and economic life” (60). On the first reading, I thought it sounded run-of-the-mill; I think I must read this basic sentiment in nearly every school’s mission statement. But, Wow, when they boil it down, get to the heart of what each of those ideas mean (or have meant), in what ways those ideas have changed, and what needs to change (educational perspective and practice) in light of social and technological reconfigurations is a whole other story! Unlike anything I’ve read before.

It is easily recognizable that “At the same time, radical changes are occurring in the nature of public, community, and economic life” (61). There are so many facets of change, it becomes overwhelming to try to articulate into words the essence of those changes – plus too, as the authors observe, changes in all of life’s areas are individualistic, and therefore, difficult to compartmentalize, or as they indicate, standardize, into a general understanding. However, there must be a general understanding in order to address the variable issues that impact individuals, or members of multiple lifeworlds (still feels like a weird word), because change will require “…active participants in social change, as learners and students who can be active designers – makers of social futures” (64).

One of the best things about this article is it isn’t another theory proposal. They’ve identified the “how” change should be highlighted and implemented; “As designers of meaning, we are designers of social futures – workplace, public and community” (65) and suggest six meaning-process elements: Linguistic, Visual, Audio, Gestural, Spatial, and Multimodal with four pedagogical components: Situated Practice, Overt Instruction, Critical Framing, and Transformed Practice; with brief definitions of each. I like an observation that comes with related suggestions. As to testing, exemplifying, extending and reworking the ideas suggested within the International Multiliteracies Project, that will produce a curriculum development program of epic proportions.

Changing realities within working, public, and private lives in a direction of designing social futures (through education) within the contexts of identified cultures that already exist – such as fast capitalism and productive diversity, public pluralism and civic pluralism, invasion of private space and multilayered lifeworlds – will be a Herculean undertaking! I am awestruck a discourse has been arrived at to discuss these frameworks.

In fact, the ambitious scope of these aims leaves me a little anxious (a lot) at the responsibility placed on teachers – we are the deliverers of education – it seems a noble and daunting mission, maybe impossible, to please all of the people all of the time (wish I could remember who said that couldn’t be done). I am reassured the authors recognize “We cannot remake the world through schooling…”(72). But sometimes people who make those statements discount the principle of tempering idealism with realism and practicality.

I believe if educational change is going to come about, it will require more than making mission statements authentically meaningful, and will require the same type of dedicated perspective by those outside of education, such as social and media public, community businesses, parents, and most relevantly, students themselves and their participatory contribution.

Trilogy of Literacy, III Rhetorical Literacy (ch 4)

Selber, S. (2004). Multiliteracies for a Digital Age.

Trilogy of Literacy, III Rhetorical Literacy (ch 4)

     Thank goodness, for the Preliminary Note about Interface Design (140) that distinguishes the front-end layer of design used to accomplish functional tasks from the design dimensions of human action as an essential element; otherwise, I may have mistaken the complex nature as scientifically technical due to my previously established rookie viewpoint. On a note of scientific-design, I did find interesting the nod to assistive technology introducing differently abled users access in ingenious ways (141). Also recent is my exposure to new (to me) and surprising capabilities of a keyboard and different hardware and equipment options and designs, as well as the guessed at, but not acquainted with, software programs and voice recognition systems.

     “Once interfaces have been contextualized, understood as discursive technologies, and implicated in value systems, other parameters can be conceptualized. In addition to persuasion, deliberation, reflection, and social action [as designer responsibility to promote social change] are parameters that illuminate the role of rhetoric” (146). In the parameters defining the qualities of a rhetorically literate student, I view myself as partially literate as I understand persuasion permeates interface design in explicit ways, though as stated earlier, had missed the implicit persuasion and hadn’t bothered much about larger structures and forces. Ill-defined Interface design problems being solved using deliberative activities of representation, would, I suppose if pressed, be the most logical problem-solving model to adopt as there wouldn’t be available too many lucky chance or precedent-based solutions. Reflection, I think is what a literate student does in every area as they become significantly involved. Social action is becoming clearer as an interface design form, especially by its humanistic nature.

     Of more interest, is the exploration of the hypertext medium and its presentations in nonlinear text, modular nodes and associative links (168). I am aware, as a “functional literate Education category student” (ch. 2), that hypertext is nonlinear. I appreciate the inclusion of hypermedia as containing multimedia forms outside of words and graphics to include animation, audio and video because before hypertext was prolifically inserted, it mostly was confined to word and graphics; then came audio and video files as hypertext, or rather hypermedia. I have found that too much text that is hypered (apparently not a word yet) is distracting. Further, I think certain people will only follow so many given instances of hypertext – generally speaking, in written text, I will follow 1 (or if I am fascinated) 2 hypertexts per page – if it is a video or audio download, I am more likely to skip it.

     In contrast, if the download is separately organized outside of the written text, such as in a modular node, and assuming I am still interested enough to investigate, or required as a student, I am more likely to follow and am more likely to make return visits – with the exception of an over-cluttered modular. I like the explanation of how authors structure their maps of prioritized content and where to place centers or home locations (171), “Ideally, relationships between modules should be weak so they operate independently and so that changes made to any one module will not affect the others. Cohesion refers to the…degree of interrelationship that exists among its internal elements. Ideally, the relationship…should be strong so that each element relates to the performance of only one function” (173).

     I find it especially helpful, and cute, how metaphors describe particular terminology, such as used to denote nodes and link. “Consistently designed, link types help users identify the wide range of textual relationships that are possible in any one hypertext system” (176). I like that a contrasting opinion was offered from a pedagogical approach that cautions an awareness of the affects on learners, “As opposed to supporting associative ways of learning, hypertext can paradoxically become a technology that unwittingly positions students in relatively passive rather than active roles” (179), an aspect I had not considered. However, with thoughtful adaptations, hypertexted (why isn’t this a word) networks that combine supported learning with initiative-driven learning would maximize opportunity.

Trilogy of Literacy, II Critical Literacy (ch 3)

Selber, S. (2004). Multiliteracies for a Digital Age.

Trilogy of Literacy, II Critical Literacy (ch 3)

     “The concern I have is that these projects [cognitive models of knowledge construction] establish a pattern of influential work in which the contexts of computer literacy are not considered to be essentially social. Nevertheless, constructivism represents a step in the right direction because even its more limited articulations tend to contemplate knowledge as a construction of verifiable properties of technological systems (80-1)”. Until I read further, this statement had me wondering what inherent properties could exist in technological systems that could be left out; it sounded so “human”, as if there were value characteristics that had not been mentioned. Come to find out, that wasn’t too far off – value characteristics (hitherto ignored by me) are part of the subtle political influences, not just annoying advertising pressure.

     It was not new to evaluate (content) for underlying agendas; but it was new to do so through the lens of technology – after all, how could a functional tool have an underlying agenda. Of course, that initial reaction is because I spend so little time “surfing” (is that term still in use?) or wandering through the World Wide Web; if I do so, it is with a target in mind and I ignore all the distractions as obstacles to my goal. However, when I consider the idea of an underlying agenda slathered over the Internet – I totally buy it; I have long been disgustingly aware of underlying influences and messages in media, naturally the condition would exist in something as pervasive as the Internet.

     As I moved through this chapter and the idea of power relations associated with technology unfolded, the clearer became the mechanisms by which online activities are standardized and controlled for sociopolitical goals (85). Other than simply noticing and appreciating the ways in which the concept user-friendly had lightened some of the burdens and smoothed many of the processes in the functional usage of technology, I hadn’t given progress and improvement any thought, and I still attribute these advancements to natural improvements made by the provider of a product to the consumer. That psychology and humanist applications would be the means of improvements and advancements were not a concern, to me they still aren’t; but it is interesting the way the humanist approach is intertwined with social responsibility. “Although human-centered perspectives are not uncommon in certain branches of constructivism, their general objective is to help computer users become more comfortable and productive in functional terms. A critical literacy, in contrast, interrogates biases, power moves, and human implications (86)”.

     I found Pfaffenberger’s theoretical political dynamic in technological systems including regularization, adjustment and reconstitution, extremely interesting. To delineate these elements containing individually separate discourses, actors, and contexts must have kept him awake nights for years to be able separate them from each other and present them so others would see them clearly and separately. So cool is the descriptive characteristics that define the features of each stage, and the growth movement of users from one level to the next during awareness and response. I really like the way the strategies and innovations are all laid out without ambiguity (100-106), I like too the way the power moves are named with ties that indicate the objective that defines each. I suppose Elizabeth Ellsworth would be pleased to see such a high level of specificity as she has disapproved of vague discussions of critical literacy (84), and Gee would find the critical level of critique liberating as informed users become more sympathetically active in the discourses that shape the technological world (98).

     “Students who are critically literate are alert to the fact that computers can be dangerous, although their attentiveness is neither superficial nor unfocused. To put it another way, students should be able to recognize and articulate the ways power circulates in technological contexts” (133). This has been a fault of mine; my attention has been superficial and generic – though I am becoming more aware. I feel more comfortable with ideas of design cultures, use contexts, institutional forces and popular representations; though, I know there is much below the surface of these ideas for me to learn.              

Trilogy of Literacy, I Functional Literacy (ch 2).

Selber, S. (2004). Multiliteracies for a Digital Age.

Trilogy of Literacy, I Functional Literacy (ch 2).

     “Computers are created by technical experts who attempt to design applications that will be transparent to users, so they can conduct their business as quickly and as easily as possible” (38). This statement sums up my initial impression of the business of computer usage; my level of computer literacy has been at a functional level – a user perspective of computers as a tool. Sure, an indispensible, multi-functioning tool – though not necessarily with applications that are transparent –at least to me, but maybe with a well-cloaked interface design. I was even mildly surprised to find five different parameters of functional literacy levels, including social conventions. I would have supposed a social purpose to be included in a different category than functional literacy. I do see how, fundamentally, the social parameter does fit within this basic level of literacy, and I also see how contextually it overlaps into the critical and rhetorical literacies. Not having spent much time reflecting on the influences of computer usage, other than as a function-user, my evaluations of myself would be as a functionally literate student in the Educational Goals category (at least I thought so), limited Social Conventions category, even more limited Specialized Discourses, basic Management Activities category and not a Technological Impasses literate student (45).

     I have certainly been aware of the limitations of technology and the circumstances in which awareness is required (47). Honestly, though, I think the err of limitations has been more on my ignorance than on a shortcoming of technology; sometimes computer failure is systematic and requires technical aid, sometimes a “technical impasse” is because I don’t know the map navigation, and sometimes technology is simply fragile and diverse rendering usage unreliable. Circumstances requiring awareness has in my experience usually been in the context of security; generally educational security of teacher-computers require commonsense and basic precautions. Now that I specifically consider security issues, I wonder why this broad aspect has been left out of technology discussions – the political, economical, the ambiguous, and the activist perspectives have been raised, but no mention of a “security literacy” – shouldn’t that be in at least one, if not to varying degrees in all three of the literacies explored?

     I do not have much experience in the Social Convention category; due to an overabundance of time spent in the Educational category, but I have found email to be not only essential in the function of education (and Management Activities), but it has become my preferred method of social communication. I think email is my preference because of the efficiency of conversing at each person’s convenience, I have enjoyed spontaneously g-mail chatting. I hope when less of my time is devoted to the Educational category, I will delve into the richer social contexts of Facebooking or blogging; something more exciting than email. From my current initiation into blogging, I can see the potential for rewarding experiences; but I also see that the demand on time of “keeping up” (the reason I have not and do not socially interface) is too consuming for me to jump in both feet first just yet – maybe later.

     “A functionally literate student effectively manages his or her online world. This unremarkable assertion seems self-evident, and in certain ways of thinking it is” (61). Until recently, I would only have recognized the self-evident assertion of the Management Activities category. One of the functions of the computer as a tool, and outside of the practical arena of the Educational category, is the ease of online shopping, from there but a short jump to the other best practical function, online banking. However, other than the practical, my management systems do not include any other functions. Only lately have I discovered, and hope to someday take the time to implement and use familiarly, the side gadgets, the convenience features, the design choices within these practical functions. Some of the more obvious designing choices I’ve utilized, but not really the organization functions, certainly not the more complex Management options I know are available; there is just so much that is available, I know I don’t need it all. I do need to explore and sort to determine what will be personally useful and which will just be over-accessorizing. I also prefer less clutter as sources leave “ware” deposits requiring more frequent clean-up maintenance.      

Eng. 516, digital writing: The “Cookbook” collection

K. Yancey (notes) – Made not only in words

Writing a tectonic evolution in creation energy and mediums: on pen to paper, on web logs (blogs), video/screenwriting, email, presentation software, instant messaging, list-serves & bulletin boards.

Assessment – include writing? or a test only of grammar and usage?

Composition in 4 quartets

First  – 19^th cent: images w/ printing press, cheaper paper, evolution in reading.

Social reading among the middle class. Novels in serial installments. Newspapers and thick novels added to new readers for new purposes – All OUTSIDE of school.

Parallel creation – a writing public. Public context Globalization: 1. possibility for world peace more than ever, 2. difficult to conduct war in secret. 21^st cent. public writers self-organize into overlapping technologically driven circles – newly imagined communities without borders.

How are English depts.. being reduced in titles to increasing “other” title names? Ditto for tenures/graduations – increases in rhetoric & composition & communication…

Second quartet

“The ability to negotiate through life combining pictures with words with audio and video to express thoughts will be the mark of an educated student” (Elizabeth Daley, Speaking) – Design a composing curriculum that prepares students to be members of the writing public and to negotiate life – in print, digital, composition, and communication.

Print of CCCC  Coherence, Clarity, Consistency, and Correctness.

Model of communication practices incorporating multiple genres related to each other, those multiple genres remediated across contexts of time and space, linked one to the next, circulating across and around rhetorical situations both inside and outside school. 

Third –

Eng. 516, digital writing, “Keywords” project