Teaching Philosophy and Unit Plan
Technology in the Writing Classroom
Writing with technology is nothing new. From the first character scratched into stone to a fully online document, writing has certainly evolved. It is now faster and more efficient, as well as able to reach a larger audience. Teaching writing with technology offer educators the potential to expand students’ technological knowledge while improving their rhetorical skills.
I believe that available technology will not make better writing. Instead, the student must work toward becoming a better writer and obtaining technological literacy. “Given the historical influence of technology upon literacy, the lack of robust research and significant findings is somewhat troubling” (McNabb 114). Given that such research is scarce, it’s all the more important for instructors to experiment with technology in an effort to become the catalysts of future research. In some cases, improved writing is one possible outcome of using technology, though it’s certainly not the only one, and that certainly does not automatically happen. The advances in visual rhetoric and students’ savvy knowledge of using pictures offers the very real danger of neglecting writing. If a document is sufficiently engaging from a visual aspect, we can’t assume that the accompanying writing is up to standard. The key is not sacrificing students’ verbal skills simply because the student can communicate effectively with pictures. In the writing classroom, as well as in many professions, written communication skills are paramount. Even if one can do highly sophisticated things with visual rhetoric, he or she might need to put these ideas into writing. Ekphrasis is an important skill to have, and teaching it begins in the writing classroom, aided by technology.
Not all writing classrooms have equipment that is up to par with modern standards. I therefore feel it’s important to focus mainly on the writer, and consequently the writing. If efficient, flashy computers are available, the instructor has more options for teaching students how to be creative with computers, as well as how to use technology to help improve writing. At a very basic level, computers can improve aspects of writing. Spell check finds errors, and grammar checks highlight questionable constructions. A student who has trouble capturing his or her thoughts on paper might find the ease with which words can be captured on screen beneficial for getting down ideas before they are gone. On the other hand, spell check does not understand the context of the words it perceives as errors. Grammar checks are too prescriptive, often to the point where they are simply incorrect. The ability to quickly capture thoughts can lead to sloppy thinking and sloppy writing. Only the writer knows what he or she is trying to say, and no computer program can hope to understand this. Even if the writer is confused about the writing’s message, any writer has a better sense of meaning than grammar check does. A writer understands context, while computer programs do not.
Changing Definitions of Literacy
If one is literate, we might say he or she can read and write. With the increasing role of the visual in today’s society, however, it’s possible to read pictures as well as words. Dr. Linda Scott, at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, researches visual theory. Her focus is on the history of consumer culture in America, as well as images of women (http://www.comm.uiuc.edu/faculty/Scott.html). While taking her course in the late 90’s, I was introduced to the then foreign concept (in my case) that pictures can be read much like text. Today, then, we could say someone is visually literate if he or she can interpret a visual argument, regardless of an ability to read and write. I believe a person can read and write well without having a strong sense of visual rhetoric. This is often apparent in introductory composition courses, in which students will use visuals to merely offer the same information available in text. I also believe a person can be quite adept at visual literacy while lacking the ability to read and write. Various cultures that do not have writing as we know it often depend on visual symbols (such as pictures) to communicate. This system of communication can be quite effective. It’s therefore unrealistic to expect that an “illiterate” person is at a serious disadvantage. Context must be taken into consideration, for some cultures simply do not use reading and writing as we do. At the same time, it is problematic to be illiterate in 2006 in the United States. Billboards, signs, newspapers, magazines, books, etc. all bombard us on a daily basis. Three years ago I tutored a fourth-grade boy in literacy. He would consistently sound out the word the as t-h-e and seemed incapable of learning to read. To this day, he does not read restaurant menus or much of anything else. He points at his ice cream flavor choice and doesn’t know what to say when handed something like a menu. This same child is an excellent artist and is able to draw profiles of people and also capture scenes from nature. While he is visually literate, he is not literate in other ways. His situation does pose a problem, but I can’t claim he is completely illiterate given the changing definitions of literacy.
Traditional literacy and computer literacy are not the only literacies relevant to students and educators. Information literacy refers to information seeking skills. “Text on information literacy rarely attempt to account for how individuals interact with other people and technical artifacts in their information environments” (Tuominen 330). I believe that in order for students to write effective papers, both research-based and opinion-based, they must understand how to obtain information that might help back up their points. An effective composition class, therefore, should occasionally meet in the library, and students should be instructed on how to access research databases or other tools that can aid in their writing.
I envision technology as playing an increasingly important role in writing instruction at all levels of the curriculum. Online spaces and complete courses will also likely become more prevalent, meaning that students will need to be literate in traditional, technological and informational ways. While funding can hold back certain students from achieving complete literacies in these areas, access to public libraries and universities are valuable resources available to help meet the growing technological needs of students. The future of writing instruction will be technology-heavy, and the potential for effective writing will be enhanced with available resources.
Works Cited
Kimmo Tuominen. "Information Literacy as a Sociotechnical Practice." Library Quarterly 75.3 (2005): 329.
McNabb, M. L. "Raising the Bar on Technology Research in English Language Arts." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 38.1 (2005): 113.
http://www.comm.uiuc.edu/faculty/scott/html 23 Nov 2006.
Objective: Students will gain a greater understand of visual rhetoric and analyze (in written form) images for their meaning in the larger social context.
Design: This unit is intended for a freshman composition course, though it’s applicable to college level humanities courses and advanced high school writing courses. This unit should occur after students have been introduced to or reviewed the elements of an essay such as thesis, topic sentence, counterargument, etc.
Supplies: Students need reliable access to the internet.
Timeline: The unit is intended to last three weeks and encompasses a writing process from brainstorming to the final draft.
Week One:
Students first brainstorm (in groups of 2-3) “buzz words” of the current culture. The terms should be broad, category words like women, race, childhood, advertising, education, etc. Each group should aim for 10 solid words. Next, the groups write their terms on the board. Each student chooses 3 with which to work.
The assignment asks students to look up the word on Google images. Once the images appear, the student will carefully analyze the top ten results.
Week Two:
Analysis will focus on four questions. 1. Do the images portray certain stereotypes? 2. Does looking at these images give one a sufficient, complicated understanding of the term? 3. What do the images say about cultural values? 4. Do any of the images make an argument? Students write a 4-6 page paper addressing the above concerns.
Week Three:
In groups of 2-3, students share drafts with peers for a peer-review session. The following peer-review sheet is adapted from http://instructors/cwrl.utexas.edu/tremel/node/36, with added information concerning my specific Google assignment.
Instructions:
Follow the instructions below and answer the following questions. Feel free to ask me questions as you are going through the assignment.
· Before trading papers with your partner(s), simply explain to your partner what your paper is on, and, in brief, what your argument is.
· Trade papers with your partner.
· Read your partner’s paper.
-note as you read your partner's paper mark any mistakes, areas of confusion, problems, or particularly good writing that you come across
· Thoroughly Answer the questions below and on the other side of this page.
· After completing each question, verbally explain all of your answers to the questions with your partner.
· Be sure to turn in a copy of your peer review sheet along with both drafts of your paper on DUE DATE.
Paper Title: ______________________________________________________________
Paper Reviewed by: __________________ Paper Written by: ____________________
1. Does the paper have an identifiable thesis? Type the thesis below.
2. Comment on the thesis. You might consider ways in which it can be improved or made more precise. Is it a thesis well suited to a specifically rhetorical analysis? Is it interesting? Disputable?
3. Do you find that the author has presented an adequate, convincing, and/or workable argument to the issue(s) he/she investigates? Explain.
4. What kinds of evidence and details does author use to support his/her thesis? Do the evidence/details seem credible, useful, cohesive?
5. Is the paper rhetorically effective? In other words, is its argument clear? Does it use convincing evidence and cite the sources of that evidence? Is its language clear? Does it read easily? Are there identifiable portions that are particularly clear and precise or confusing, vague, etc.?
6. Organization—can the author do anything to improve the organization/structure of his/her argument. How does the author's organization relate to the structure of the essay being analyzed?
7. What are your thoughts on the intro and conclusion? Can you suggest any way to
improve the introduction and conclusion of the paper?
8. What can the author do to improve the paper? What should the author focus on? Argument, evidence, ethos, citations, language, etc.?
9. Has the author sufficiently described the visual elements he/she analyzed for this paper? Are the words submitted to Google images valid choices for this assignment?
Students then revise their papers based on peer comments. One option, time permitting, is to have the instructor make written comments on the rough drafts as well. Each student hands in a final version.