Response to Sorapure: Final Blog Post For 09 Seminar

Sorapure points out that assessing the digital composition adds new complexities. She quotes Yancey’s (2004) discussion of coherence in digital texts: "Digital compositions weave words and context and images: They are exercises in ordered complexity--and complex in some different ways than print precisely because they include more kinds of threads" (95).

Adding the digital components to composition does add or weave new threads into the texts. “Multi-modality” assessment becomes a problem of bridging old to new. We can I’m sure use standard assessment criteria based on the assumption that writing is writing, communication is communication, expression is expression, and no matter the mode, common values are still in place. On the other hand, there will be new criteria or twists to the old ones.
For example, the value of coherence becomes more complex.

Now, the question is, how well did the choices the writer make in mixing mediums or modes work toward a central theme or intention? Did all of the pieces work together and strengthen the composition, or did all of the pieces serve fragmentation and confusion? Did the use of mixed mediums enrich the message or dilute it? To assess multi-modal compositions, coherence suddenly becomes more complex than thesis statement, topic sentence, transitions, and repetition of main ideas.

Multi-modal compositions I think will still have the same criteria that good writing has, but a new degree of complexity is added to the mix. One problem I do see after having viewed the example assignments in her article is the problem of familiarity with visual and audio values, or esthetics. I am experienced and practiced in assessing qualities of good writing, but I have only a kind of consumer’s experience as a critic of visual and audio production. Much of the digital compositions incorporate design elements that would be part of a drawing class, a graphics arts class, a photography class, a music composition class. Those are areas that I am not “professionally” versed in so there is that lack of experience which may possibly lead to assessment based more on personal taste as to objective assessment. Just a thought.

On a practical note: Part of the English IB assessment includes a 15 minute oral presentation on topics from selected literary works in our curriculum. In the past, we have down played the use of technology, mostly because of assessment issues and also to even out the playing field. I can see that now, however, students and myself are more prepared to be able to make more artistic and “multi-modal” presentations that utilize technological resources. I can see that building in proper assessment measures to accommodate the modes will be necessary—and doable.

Signing off! May the warm winds of summer blow slowly. Thanks everyone for your comments, insights, sharing, humor, intelligence, inspiration. Thank you Scot for a helpful and enjoyable class. As a teacher who just this year really began to sense the "dinasaur syndrome," I feel that your class and expertise were very helpful in making me feel a bit more evolved.

Writing Students: My final project example

Why Do I Belong Assignment: Three Pieces in Three Discourses

I. Do I Belong Anymore? or Thoughts on Belonging to a Boys Club: the European White Male

I’ve asked my students to write about belonging, to address the question of why they belong—why they belong anywhere, but perhaps most immediately, why do they belong here, in the university? That seems to me to be a good question since for so long, for much of our history, society said, “You do not belong.” Recently at a panel discussion about being a college student, one of the panel members looked at the students, mostly African-american, Hispanic, Asian, and women, and said, “You know, it is important for you to get here because this place was never built for you. It was built for white men.” That’s me—a member of one of the most privileged groups ever.

White men never have to question belonging—they automatically belong to the exclusive club they created for themselves. I’m even a pure blood, pure German, no other nationalities in my family—though Jewish was in my background until the 17th century when the white boys club put enough pressure on that some relative of mine decided to live rather than die and converted to Christianity. I even live with the blood of the most maniacal of white men’s clubs ever—the Nazi’s, who favored blue eyed blonde men and women as the chosen race, or whatever that is. That’s me—blonde (when I had hair) and blue eyed through and through. For my type, six million Jews had to suffer and die.
I don’t have to apply to belong anywhere. Automatic entrance into American society is granted to the white male. We had it all—land, money, political power, the vote, goofy wigs. It was the great white male race that ran the slavery clubs to basically serve us and make us lots of money. Corporate America got on the move and the white male was at the top, and though people say we are becoming so much more diverse, look around: it’s still the same guys! Well almost—we do have Obama, we have made strides.

The group of people I belong to, the white male, gets all freaked out and breaks out into collective hives whenever anyone suggests proactive measures to make sure that other bloods get into power too. White men love to snarl and cringe at the idea of affirmative action or any such system of hiring and accepting that puts a person of color in front of them. “Reverse discrimination!” they cry. “Discrimination is discrimination! A person should be judged by their character, not by the color of their skin!” See, white males even like to steal the good lines from the minority leaders and claim them as their own. We are so good at stealing.

So now, the question really becomes, why should I belong? I mean really, haven’t we had exclusive rights for just about enough time now? My white male peers might cringe and call me a dirty rotten Benedict Arnold (a white male who got kicked out of his own club) and call me weak and “politically correct.” I’m not politically correct, I’m just saying, hey! Give it up! Let someone else have a chance. Ever hear of retirement? Well, that’s in danger too since the white male club is notoriously so greedy that they know how to bankrupt the country but keep just enough for the super white alpha capitalist males to live comfortably , forever. So, do I belong? I don’t know. I do, I guess, but I think it is time to reapply to someone else’s club—for a change.

II. White man conversation with Native American

Two men sit side by side at a bar drinking grape sodas. One man is a white male. The other is a native American man. He has long hair pulled back into a braid that stretches down his back. The white male wears a baseball cap with a logo of his favorite baseball team, the Toledo Mudhens.
W.M: So how come they used to call you red skins? Your skin does not look red to me.
N.A.: Must have been a sun burnt brave the first white dudes saw. They probably killed him too. I dunno. They just called us red skins. Course you’re not white either you know. You’re more pink.
W.M: Skin color is kind of a stupid thing, don’t you think.
N.A. You mean, the way people always got to identify someone else according to their skin color or their ethnicity?
W.M. Yeah, that.
N.A. So, maybe you’re just not comfortable in your own skin.
W.M. Are you?
N.A.: Oh yeah. I like my skin.
W.M. Well, it is nice skin. I’ll give you that. But still, what’s the big deal. Why can’t people just be people?
N.A. Well, maybe for you, that’s easy to want since you never had to really worry about it. You know, your guys did a pretty good job of making sure there weren’t too many of us Indians around. So, you know, what’s left, we got to be proud of our selves.
W.M. But don’t you think people are just people?
N.A. You white guys are so naïve. You never had to worry too much about it, did you? But me, look, there was a time not long ago I was not welcome in this bar. I didn’t belong. Had to go to the Indian bar and get stupid on grape soda with all the other Indians in the same place. We weren’t good enough get stupid with the rest of the stupid white soda drinkers. That’s stupid. But, you, if you wanted to get stupid, you could do it anywhere because you always belonged. You didn’t have to apply to get in.
W.M. Here’s what I say. Let’s apply to the bartender for another grape soda. It’s on me. You accept my invitation?
N.A.: I never turned down a grape soda in my life. Nothing like a grape soda to bring humanity together.
W.M.: Cheers, my red skinned brother.
N.A.: Cheers, pinky.

III. To what do I belong? I belong to . . .

The Biel and Levi clans
The Hallman clan
My children
My wife
My backyard
My friends
My neighborhood in Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Montana
Wyoming
The Badlands
A community of writers
Germany
Russia
My students
My DNA
Failure
Success
Hope
Sadness
Courage
Happiness
Fear
Determination
History
The belief in being and nada mas
Joy of being
The future
The past
The stars
The moon
The universe
Everything
At least for the time being
Here on earth
For as long as I can make it last
For as long as it can go on
I’ll be a part of it
All of my atomic marrow will some day just filter down into the dust
And I will still be a part of it
Because I belong here
Now
And however long the world decides to keep me.

For Tom's Students: Updated URL's

Hi. Below is an updated list of everyone's URL. Remember, read and comment on at least two of your classmates' "Beloning" final projects.

Kunga: http://lakashak.blogspot.com
Shawn: http://Ace5134.blogspot.com
Makayla: http://imjustme3.blogspot.com
Linh: http://sophiaLex.blogspot.com
Chasidy: http://chase-young22.blogspot.com
David: http://goblin-david.blogspot.com
Enis: http://6floooooo.blogspot.com
Jared: http://jyoungbuck.blogspot.com
Becca: http://xkoolchiickx.blogspot.com
Devonna: http://dajpepz.blogspot.com
Natanya: http://onatzwords.blogspot.com
Ricky: http://ricky-tan-ricky-tan.blogspot.com
Larenda: http://lmaul.blogspot.com
Michaela: http://peopleblog-makadayla.blogspot.com
Jhazmne: http://ilikeapples23.blogspot.com
Nick: http://nick-nicknames.blogspot.com

Rebecca Moore Howards Blogspot blog

I googled Rebecca Moore Howard and she has a blog on blogger. Her second to latest post is on plagiarism.

On "The Anxieties of Authorship"

First point (Actually, this was my last point, but I think it is the most interesting, so I put it up front in case you didn't want to read the rest! You're welcome.) I found the discussion of gatekeepers vs. facilitators interesting. I agree that as teachers we are both but probably lean toward one side more than the other. Where do I lean? I think I am a gatekeeper. When I discover plagiarism by a student, I almost immediately play facilitator and use the experience as a learning opportunity to teach the value of originality to the student as well as academic integrity. But, when plagiarism happens mulitple times by the same student, all badly done too, then I become gate keeper and let that student know that dishonest academic practices weaken the whole system and the learning community. That person is not banned, but that person has to earn the way back in, has to earn the good graces of the gatekeepers through proven scholarship.

Howard says this about the gatekeeper, and I find it interesting: "[Gatekeepers] believe that gatekeeping is the fundamental function of pedagogy, and that the gate in question is not to the academy, but to the society that sponsors the academy. The function of education . . . is to make sure that the dominated remain under control; that the dominant are able, as a result of education, to walk through the gates of power" (29). Now, as politically incorrect as that may sound, I tend to agree with it, but with reservations about who the dominant are or who they should be. First, I think that the non-status quo should always be on the move to wrestle power away from the status quo; otherwise, change never happens. If the status quo power is illegitimate, say racist or sexist or fascist, then the non-dominant must seek to become the dominant. But, much of the world actually works, which sometimes we don't readily acknowldege. Lots of good peopel wield good power in this world. I trust myself as a teacher. I trust most of my colleagues and admire many and try to emulate them. Those academic leaders, institutional leaders, political and spiritual leaders, artistic leaders, who have the as their core values the recognizable "Good," then I believe that these dominators should be enabled to continue to dominate. One of the enlightened values of the "Good" dominators should be humility and the understanding that there is always a better way and that no one can own the truth. I believe that our society, being the democratic institution that it is, fears intellectual domination, and yet, I would prefer to have the educated be the dominant leaders--I want the smart people to be at the forefront of our society.

I believe then that as a gatekeeper, I do try to groove the "elite" for the future responsibilities of being leaders. The color, shape, size, and gender of the elite needs to change. The look of the elite needs to be the people, and no one should be kept out of the ranks of the elite other than those who who cannot handle the academic, free thinking, intellectual rigor necessary to perceive new ideas and to originate new ideas. Everyone is capable; the few stand up and do it. If someone can do it outside the box of academia, great. But within the institution, power should go to the best educated, and the best educated should be those that understand the goal of true freedom, equality, and integrity of the human mind and the small place we have in the universe. So, I guess there is one disagreement with the Howard statement about gatekeepers--the true nature of the gatekeeper is not to make sure the dominated stay under control, but to make sure that freedom is accessible to those who have been under the thumb of control, and to realize that freedom doesn't come with a stamp of "Because your are American, you are free." Freedom can only come with the greatest amount of responsibility ready to be worn. Plagiarism, I would argue, erodes freedom and enables submission.

My definition of plagiarism? I would define plagiarism as the appropriation of another author's words and ideas to be used by an author in his or her own writing without acknowledgment of the source. I would agree that there are degrees of plagiarism, and that would depend upon the willfullness of the act. If one isn't aware of what he or she is doing, that is still plagiarism but not as morally deficient as willfully appropriating someone else's words and ideas as one's own.

Have I plagairized? No doubt. I'm sure I have. I'm sure I've delivered lectures and notes on ideas that I have gleaned from sources I did not credit. That does not make it right--just makes me accountable for being more academically honest. I have appropriated Amy D's entire curriculum and adapted it as my own for the PEOPLE Writing Workshop. That would be appropriation to be sure. If the students were under the impression that the course was designed soley by me and Amy was not credited in my syllabus, then I would be guilty of plagiarism. I do think that teachers borrow heavily, and smart teachers borrow good stuff. Since Amy's syllabus was darn good, then I must be smart. But, I do think it is professionally ethical that when one does borrow that one does credit the source. This is only fair and practices what we preach.

When Howard brings up the issue of teachers plagairizing in their lectures, I think she brings up a solid question. I have wondered about this for a long time, and I try to credit my sources whenever I remember to. Sometimes, just from research and reading without taking notes, I appropriate ideas that may not be mine; however, I still try to point out that the idea I'm teaching isn't my original idea but comes from other critics or scholars. When I borrow another teacher's assignment, I try to acknowledge the teacher who originated the assignment.

Students who claim that the system itself pushes plagiarism in such forums as notetaking raise a few good issues. First of all, taking notes, remembering what a teacher teaches, and being able to explain it back or remediate it, is a form of showing what one has learned. Presumably, what has been taught is useful; showing that one has accumulated that useful knowledge is not plagiarism. It is a plank in the learning platform, I guess. If repetition of what the teacher says is the end of the teacher's learning objectives, then the issue is not plagiarism but low ended learning goals that will encourage a kind of plagiaristic thinking. But, if the goals of teaching are synthesis, analysis, criticism, persuasion, and orginality, then repeating basic planks of the learning platform is one necessary step toward that original thinking.

Nothing is original. I don't agree. Most is derivative, yes, for sure, and therefore, what is original thinking and what is just copy cat thinking does lead us into some ambiguous waters. I teach under the belief that everyone is capable of original thought but that some are more equipped to do it than others, for whatever reasons. While some students may come in with an unfair advantage of family background with academic values in place, the ability to think originally is still a democratic ability--everyone can do it. Similarily, students who come in with the best academic values in place are equally as capable of falling short of them. I believe that when I teach literature I employ the scaffolding method of learning. Lots of material is out there for me to retrieve and retool into my own lessons; however, throughout the process, the scaffolding falls away and original ideas occur. They are bubbles that come floating out of my head, pink ones (just seeing if anyone has actually read this far!)

A couple last thoughts

What if there were a Franz Kafka fan fiction site? No one would be able to get to it.


The final part of the article about the Christian fear of Harry Potter is nearly too inane to comment on. Not that it wasn't interesting to read about, but I mean the self-righteous religious attitude overall. Among the liberal Christian "discernment" group that favors reading H.P., there was this far reaching example of open mindedness extraordinaire: "Neopaganism is a growing reality in our post-Christian world, and our children need to be able to meet its challenge with a quiet confidence in the gospel. They need to know the difference between fantasy literature and the occult." My question is, when these kids read the Bible, are they able to distinguish the same?

Why Heather Can Write Response

I’m about 2/3 the way through. Got kind of bogged down with the domain and copyright wars. So, I’ll focus on the first part of the article which focused on Harry Potter and fan-fiction sites.

Once again, I find an old dog learning new tricks. While the fan fiction sites don’t surprise me, I didn’t know they were there. What Jenkins describes I find quite positive and encouraging. Once again, I find that the computer and the internet has awakened all kinds of writing urges out there and has opened up the floodgates to writers of every type, age, and genre. I say yay to that.

Writing communities are old school made new school through fan-fiction writing communities. I think it is amazing that so much writing goes on without teacher or classroom motivation behind it, as Jenkins notes as well. These “affinity spaces” as Gee termed them, are invaluable communities of learning that exist because of a common passion motivated only by an individual desire, not through any social mandate—ie, school. As a teacher, I think it is important to keep in mind that the learning a student accumulates will be mostly self-accumulated. A person will learn I think according to what that person has a deep interest to pursue. I try to remind myself that the learning that goes on in school is but one fraction of the learning that person will gather throughout life.

School is in itself, I think, an affinity space, or a learning community, much like a fan fiction or a book club or a writer’s group. The difference is that school is the one that is the “official” affinity group, and due to the fact that it is mandated, that the curriculum is limited and may not fit with individual passions, learning in school is met with much resistance. Funny how what we do in school, teaching reading, writing, math, science, exploration, problem solving, exercising, are things that students will balk at until 3:45 when they can go home and continue doing the same things, only this time, by their own choice. At home, it’s fun; in school, it’s a task.

Here’s an interesting quotation: “Schools are still locked into a model of autonomous learning that contrasts sharply with the kinds of learning that are needed as students are entering the new knowledge cultures. Gee and other educators worry that students who are comfortable participating in and exchanging knowledge through affinity spaces are being deskilled as they enter the classroom.” Yeow! “Deskilled.” I cringe at the suggestion and am provoked to self defense! En garde!

Perhaps it takes looking at schools as not the paradigm of all learning but only a slice of the pie. When one thinks of all the different kinds of learning that goes on in a school on any given day, one should be impressed. I am. I see creativity all over the place. I see teachers appropriating all the time from the “real world.” I see collaboration, exploration, discovery, synthesis, debate, dialogue, simulation, reasoning, prediction and problem solving happening multiple times a day. Schools do do what affinity spaces do, only we are the mandated institution for it which takes some of the romance of the self motivation away. Strip away the “institution,” the “mandate,” the “testing measurements,” and you will see organic learning happening.

But, I think it is very important to see schools as only a part of much vaster whole. Schools are collaborators in the effort to learn. Schools should be careful not to break the learning spirit, and, rather than hinder those engaged in “affinity spaces” as described in the article, we should be promoting them and collaborating with them. Harry Potter Fan Fic groups probably wouldn’t exist if these children had not been given literacy skills from the moment they began school. I do fear school indoctrination, which is why I choose to see schools as a learning community. It is important to get beyond the constructs of the institution and see the organic learning that goes on all the time. We play the school game, and it has its problems and its control-freak elements and its entrapped-within-the-system-shortcomings, but there is also an organic part to the school game that has in its core the same kind of motivations and passions and potentials as affinity spaces that lie beyond the classroom walls.

Final Thoughts on the Rice Piece: DJ's and Writing, 2nd of two posts

I've finished reading the Rice piece now. There are a few points I'd like to bring up.

"To cry theft is to refuse to recognize the mix's role in new media based expression and how that role may destabilize rhetorical and pedagogical expectations" (Rice, 68). I am puzzled at his defense of plagiarism, almost a dismissive attitude toward it. Rice seems to want to identify writing and "the mix" as the same thing. It is not. Yes, the DJ can be a writer, no doubt. He may write his mixes, and the introduction of the Mellotron made it possible for musicians to sample all kinds of previous sounds and songs and borrow them for a new composition. But, note: that is music. When Public Enemy samples something from Frank Sinatra, there is a built in acknowledgment that it is borrowed and is being mixed into a new song by Public Enemy. No one is thinking that Public Enemey is trying to pretend that the Sinatra part is theirs! But in writing, when a student borrows ideas for a history research paper and does not acknowledge the source and passes the information off as his own, that's different. In this case, the writer, knowingly or not, is placing his or her credit on that information.

"The appropriation-motivated mix is not recognized as human nature in the average writing course because the emphasis is often on salvaging an assumed authorial authenticity; students are asked to maintain singular identities distinct from their writing" (69). Is there something wrong with salvaging an authenticity? If we mix to the point of the loss of authorial authenticity, do we risk turning individual authorship into a colorless, homogenous, formless stew of language and image without anything authentic left--no singular mark of identity? Furthermore, I contest the idea that mixing is anything new. The technology to mix in the writing medium is greater and more exciting than ever, but it has always been done, and it has always been done in every medium. Religion may be one of the first sources, what with all the prophets and such playing with our notions of time, predicting the future, and the future when it comes referencing the past, the writers of scripture mixing songs and poems and narratives and history and science all into one! Imagine. Now, mixing is more dramatic, more obvious, and maybe potentially more entertaining than ever, and we should embrace the concept. But again, mixing has always been done, sampling has always been a part of writing; what is new is the technology to provide hyper mixing.

Rice's excitement about alter egos in the hip hop world seems to overlook the fact that each and every time we write, we write with a different identity. Okay, when my students turn in their work, they sign their names, usually, to it. But, in the range of discouse, a student who writes an analytical paper on the Great Gatsby and then the next day pens a spoken word poem for his spoken word open mic night is most definitely mixing in different identities, whether he or she stills goes by the same name or not. What's in a name? What we are aware of as writing teachers are the different voices, the different discourses.

What do I agree with in this article? I agree that mixing is a good thing in writing. I agree that the powers that be often appropriate the cool as a means of maintaining control or equally as a means to actually make socially responsible progress--depending on the motive. I agree that "using appropriation within the rhetoric of cool allows writers to write outside of the limitations of student writing" that allow them to further enjoy other forms of writing. I agree wioth much in principle. But, I find the article narrow, dismissive of core writing, dismissive of the process of mixing that is a form of thinking that is now massively stimulated by technology but that has always been a part of creativity. I also believe in coherence and clarity, which may come in many forms, including incoherence and unclarity in a Zenish way--if it works, it works. If it doesn't, it won't.

For Seminar on Rice's chapter "Appropriation": What the . . .?

Something in me says that this is way over theorizing. I am about 2/3 the way through the article. I have taken one nap and I have been reading for nearly two hours. Yes, I am a slow reader, but this is a really slowly written article, full of words like "foregrounding" (what the hell does foregrounding mean?) and "recontextualizing," and "reinscription" and "topos." I find what Rice has to say interesting, but at some point, the point he is making is just taking too much work to get there. My whole aescetic sensibility (ah, now I sound like Rice--or perhaps more like that old foggie Wayne Booth) when it comes to writing and communication in general is, does it work? And frankly, much of what he is talking about, Burrough's "cut-up" does not work and will not work as much as we want it to work in writing.

I love Burroughs. I have a t-shirt with his picture on it. I should cut it up. But I've never really read much of Burroughs' work because it is too hard, too cut up, doesn't make a lot of narrative sense to me. The cut-up method may work great for movies, for painting, for music--but for writing? I'm not sure. Yes, it will, as experimentation, for sure, and great works will employ its method. But I just don't get the paranoia around making coherent sense?

I do understand that as writers experiment with narrative and cohesion, those that are really good at it will help shape the structure of thinking in the end. But, here's something I'm not too sure about: "As a writing strategy, its purpose is to undemine the dominant ideology of a given text, to reduce 'control symbols pounded to word and image dust; crumpled cloth boides of the vast control machine" (63).

I'm not naive. I understand that rhetorical structures are part of a power structure and appropriation of the cool can be a power play by the powers that be to deceptively include the marginalized (and the cool) while actually maintaining power by siphoning off the cool for themselves. On the other hand, what happens if there really is a revolution? What happens if there really is drastic, radical change of social order and an action that strips away the corporate greed and insidious tyranny of the corporate capitalistic beast? Will the leaders of this revolution lead the masses with rallies of cut-up rhetoric? Will the inspirational text of the revolution be split into four parts so that the actual order and cohesion of the message is deliberately decodified so that no one can understand what the ?+%* is going on?

I feel I am being cynnical and perhaps being old foggie (how do you spell that word?)here, but I just wonder what would have happened to the speaches of Dr. King if he had employed cut-up?

Now, with paintings, music, even plays, I can see it. I get it. Picasso did it. MTV did it. Becket did it. But they don't lose the story when they do. My fear is, what happens to the story? What happens to science? What happens to history? (okay--history could use some cut up--needs a jolt.) I'm just a little put off by all the theorizing when an artist, a writer, basically has a point to make and the point will be made by whatever means possible, but it should not be made at the expense of the enjoyment or the message itself--otherwise, what is the point? Are we supposed to be outraged by advertising appropriating cool? By white society appropriating black cool? Can Dick Cheney be cool? Would we be pissed off if he actually were?

Enough said. I'll contradict myself on the issue tomorrow. Maybe I should finish the article first.

For students in Tom's class: URL updates

Hi. Below is an updated list of everyone's URL, except for Nick's, whose URL I don't have yet (?)

Kunga: http://lakashak.blogspot.com

Shawn: http://Ace5134.blogspot.com

Makayla: http://imjustme3.blogspot.com

Linh: http://sophiaLex.blogspot.com

Chasidy: http://chase-young22.blogspot.com

David: http://goblin-david.blogspot.com

Enis: http://6floooooo.blogspot.com

Jared: http://jyoungbuck.blogspot.com

Becca: http://xkoolchiickx.blogspot.com

Devonna: http://dajpepz.blogspot.com

Natanya: http://onatzwords.blogspot.com

Ricky: http://ricky-tan-ricky-tan.blogspot.com

Larenda: http://lmaul.blogspot.com

Michaela: http://peopleblog-makadayla.blogspot.com

Jhazmne: http://ilikeapples23.blogspot.com

* Double check that I have copied your URL correctly.

* As of Tuesday, June 30, you should have the following work done:
1. blog site set up
2. all class URL's listed in your blogs I'm following list
3. all the outside URL blogs I've listed for you to add to your follow list
4. This I Believe essay posted to blog
5. Three This I Believe essays read and comments posted to those three bloggers
6. At least one outside blog article read, and then summarized, critiqued, and responded to as a New Post on your blog.

Keep working. Keep writing. Remember, you are writers and thinkers.

First Post in Response to Yancey article

I will start with Yancey's conclusion: "In helping create writing publics, we also foster the development of citizens who vote, of citizens whose civic literacy is global in its sensibility and its communicative potential, and whose commitment to humanity is characterized by consistency and generosity as well as the ability to write for purposes that are unconstrained and audiences that are nearly unlimited."

I think this is a noble endeavor. It is a great objective, and it will be one that I try to remember to keep at the forefront of my own teaching. One thought that comes to mind about the quotation, other than its noble intention, is that it seems that this objective has always been at the core of teaching writing, perhaps forever. Regardless of the advancements of technology, helping to create writing publics and to foster democratic citizenship has I think always been part of the teaching agenda.

The point that Yancey makes is perhaps the same one that occurs each and every time a society hits a new turning point in technological advancement. When hieroglyphics evolved from picture writing to phonic symbols, new possibilities for spreading the power of communication was also most likely urged. Now, Yancey seems to suggest, with the proliferation of electronic media and the eyeblink speed of world-wide communication via the web and other media possibilities, we must again adapt to the times and incorporate what is becoming main stream into our curriculum so that we as teachers don't become irrelevant.

It is only this year that I have begun to feel like I am swimming up current in the tech-river. I do feel behind now, and it does affect my effectiveness. However, that said, I want to just share this very short anecdote. In the copy room last semester in school, I expressed to a colleague this feeling of falling behind. And he said, "Yes, maybe, but we have to remember that now matter what, teaching still boils down to asking good questions and soliciting good answers. Teaching is still about an idea, no matter how we get there." I take this notion too to be true. The core is the same. To update delivery method is important, but it is not the most important. The idea at the heart of the matter is still what counts the most.

Welcome to Blog-in

This blog site is under construction and development for a class or classy students in the PEOPLE program. Stay posted.