Hi, all.
You can view my final draft here. I accidentaly over-wrote my earlier file so the earlier links will also bring you to the final!
I wish you all a wonderful summer!
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
my drafty-draft
Here it is, folks. I hope you can begin to tell at least, but in my project I'm interested in addressing how the current interest surrounding the concept of "re-mix" in our field is actually not that different than earlier views on using imitation to teach writing. Eventually, I'll look at how and why imitation fell out of vogue in composition (namely, I'll attempt to trace the death of imitation in our field as critical pedagogies emerged). I'm interested, too, in what imitation and re-mix allow us to think about (form and, most importantly, the form-content relationship). I see this project, tracing the relationship between "re-mix" and "imitation" as significant to the broader work I'm trying to do in understanding our current attention to form through multi-media work within our field without addressing past challenges to similar work. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or thoughts thus far. I worked hard on the "roots." Oh, and please view the project in "full screen" mode if you can. I think it does matter.
Reflecting on Prezi-making (most of this week's work)
Oddly enough, even though the Prezi that I made of this week "The Roots of Remix: Back to Imitation, Back to Form" was my first Prezi, it wasn't the first Prezi I've helped to compose. Four of my English 201 students are doing Prezis for their final projects this semester, and I've assisted their work by scrambling along side of them to figure out how to embed non-YouTube videos (YouTube vids are quite simple in Prezi; just paste in the link and there it is!) and how to create frames. However, after being quite surprised at the relative struggles my four very bright and savvy students experienced, I could completely relate early this week when I felt like pulling my hair and jumping up and down at the same time. I experienced three main struggles that I want to talk about here, struggles that display how my usual composing process has been shifted and thus made more visible: 1) the composing process (especially creating paths) and how that relates to reading your work aloud; 2) the tools for composing (working on different computers); and 3) an issue that relates very much to the first two: the scale/size of a Prezi--its physical location on the computer screen.
Firstly, when I write, I re-read my work back to myself so many times I could easily recite it. Seriously. This, I think, is what makes me the worst editor for my own work but, I think, it also usually strengthens my writing in other ways. This re-reading process was practically impossible on Prezi simply because of the ways in which Prezi doesn't allow you to delete paths very easily. That is, as I was writing, I either had to link all of my ideas up or leave them unlinked, which makes editing order very strange. Anyway, I have found ways to adjust by constantly linking and unlinking and relinking and...but it has been quite frustrating at times.
Another issue I had was that I found working on my Prezi on my tiny notebook to be near impossible. When I first stared experimenting with Prezi I though, "no way can I do this...this is way too clunky;" yet, oddly enough, I had much less trouble working on my desktop. I'm wondering if this experience has uncovered what I don't know about the slight differences between mac and pcs...hopefully I'll figure this out as I continue to work...
Lastly, my Prezi, right now, is all over the map (canvas). Seriously, it is pretty crazy. I've even lost some pieces of text. This will definitely take some work in thinking in new ways about presenting arguments spatially.
I'm really looking forward to seeing what you've all created over the weekend! That's all I have for now...
Firstly, when I write, I re-read my work back to myself so many times I could easily recite it. Seriously. This, I think, is what makes me the worst editor for my own work but, I think, it also usually strengthens my writing in other ways. This re-reading process was practically impossible on Prezi simply because of the ways in which Prezi doesn't allow you to delete paths very easily. That is, as I was writing, I either had to link all of my ideas up or leave them unlinked, which makes editing order very strange. Anyway, I have found ways to adjust by constantly linking and unlinking and relinking and...but it has been quite frustrating at times.
Another issue I had was that I found working on my Prezi on my tiny notebook to be near impossible. When I first stared experimenting with Prezi I though, "no way can I do this...this is way too clunky;" yet, oddly enough, I had much less trouble working on my desktop. I'm wondering if this experience has uncovered what I don't know about the slight differences between mac and pcs...hopefully I'll figure this out as I continue to work...
Lastly, my Prezi, right now, is all over the map (canvas). Seriously, it is pretty crazy. I've even lost some pieces of text. This will definitely take some work in thinking in new ways about presenting arguments spatially.
I'm really looking forward to seeing what you've all created over the weekend! That's all I have for now...
Friday, March 19, 2010
Derek Mueller's "Digital Underlife in the Networked Writing Classroom"
In searching for some relevant articles for my final project, I came across the article, "Digital Underlife in the Networked Writing Classroom" by Derek Mueller. Given our heavily reflective and "pulling-things-together" mid-term week, I thought this would be an interesting article to blog about even if it may or may not be able to feed directly into my final project idea (you know, in the spirit of underlife and all...)
Essentially, this article details the geneaology of this concept and how it might be a more useful, sustainable and, ultimately tolerant way of being in a networked classroom. Muelller defines this in the following ways:
Digital underlife encompasses both an ulterior field for illicit communication and the elusive, underground discursive activities proliferated therein with the aid of digital technologies; it evokes an inexact sphere for extraneous, hyper-threaded interchanges between pairs of individuals or among crowds of users, as often asynchronous as transpiring in real time. Like more traditional conceptions of underlife, new and emerging variations of digital underlife greatly push the limits of institutional rules and roles. More frequently than ever before, transgressions of institutional rules and roles manifest in writing—in the digital packets of discourse that are no longer confined by the physical space of a singular institutional scene. And so it is a crucial concept for us to understand as teachers of writing, particularly when the students we work with are multiply and simultaneously engaged in the production and circulation of writing related to any number of disparate,contending subjectivities (241).
Here, Mueller seems to be stating that the digital underlife occurs when unsanctioned institutional activities (texting/IMing between students in the classroom) occur. Mueller suggests that instead of thinking of these activities as unnecessary or unproductive, we could instead think about these as somewhat generative. One of the main premisely for Mueller's argument is that demands on our attention have shifted as thus teaching in ways that make use of the recognize these varying demands on our and our students' attention will serve both us and them better.
I find Mueller's ideas intriguing because, as an instructor, I have always found it difficult to ask students to do particular kinds of things with their bodies (sit in circular arrangements, get up and stretch, sit in new seats each time). I often find it patronizing to make these kinds of requests of students (although, of course, I have learned to deal with this). Technology, then, is a logical extension. I never ask students to put phones away simply because I don't really feel like they've been a problem in my class. Similarly, when I taught in Curtin 108, I would sometimes see students on Facebook or other sites. Although I think I've found ways to "deal with" these kinds of moments productively (talking about this use of the technology with the class, asking students to email friends notes from class that day or text them regarding a conference sign-up time), I I know that I'm not seeing these spaces in the same generative ways that Mueller suggests...at least not entirely.
Further, I wonder about what the "digital underlife" might look like in a classroom that is online, such as ours. In this case, would the "digital underlife" take place in ways that transgress the expectations of the course by relying too heavily on f2f conversations or context that we've had outside of the course?
Essentially, this article details the geneaology of this concept and how it might be a more useful, sustainable and, ultimately tolerant way of being in a networked classroom. Muelller defines this in the following ways:
Digital underlife encompasses both an ulterior field for illicit communication and the elusive, underground discursive activities proliferated therein with the aid of digital technologies; it evokes an inexact sphere for extraneous, hyper-threaded interchanges between pairs of individuals or among crowds of users, as often asynchronous as transpiring in real time. Like more traditional conceptions of underlife, new and emerging variations of digital underlife greatly push the limits of institutional rules and roles. More frequently than ever before, transgressions of institutional rules and roles manifest in writing—in the digital packets of discourse that are no longer confined by the physical space of a singular institutional scene. And so it is a crucial concept for us to understand as teachers of writing, particularly when the students we work with are multiply and simultaneously engaged in the production and circulation of writing related to any number of disparate,contending subjectivities (241).
Here, Mueller seems to be stating that the digital underlife occurs when unsanctioned institutional activities (texting/IMing between students in the classroom) occur. Mueller suggests that instead of thinking of these activities as unnecessary or unproductive, we could instead think about these as somewhat generative. One of the main premisely for Mueller's argument is that demands on our attention have shifted as thus teaching in ways that make use of the recognize these varying demands on our and our students' attention will serve both us and them better.
I find Mueller's ideas intriguing because, as an instructor, I have always found it difficult to ask students to do particular kinds of things with their bodies (sit in circular arrangements, get up and stretch, sit in new seats each time). I often find it patronizing to make these kinds of requests of students (although, of course, I have learned to deal with this). Technology, then, is a logical extension. I never ask students to put phones away simply because I don't really feel like they've been a problem in my class. Similarly, when I taught in Curtin 108, I would sometimes see students on Facebook or other sites. Although I think I've found ways to "deal with" these kinds of moments productively (talking about this use of the technology with the class, asking students to email friends notes from class that day or text them regarding a conference sign-up time), I I know that I'm not seeing these spaces in the same generative ways that Mueller suggests...at least not entirely.
Further, I wonder about what the "digital underlife" might look like in a classroom that is online, such as ours. In this case, would the "digital underlife" take place in ways that transgress the expectations of the course by relying too heavily on f2f conversations or context that we've had outside of the course?
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Carruthers' The Craft of Thought and Implications for the Composition Classroom
In this post, I'm going to trace out, Carruthers' foundational ideas on memory and invention and then place those in juxtaposition with how memory's relationship with invention seems to play out in central theories within our field (such as critical pedagogy). Ultimately, I want to suggest that Carruthers provides as way for us to complicate how we understand memory in our society and suggests that memory's role in creation is both downplayed and flattened in theories of writing such as those evident in critical pedagogy.
In Chapter One, "Collective Memory and memoria rerum," Carruthers suggests that memory is the "mother of all muses." By this, Carruthers means that memory, although it appeared near the end of the "five" parts of rhetoric, actually comes in much earlier as invention, Carruthers suggests is contingent on our memory. Carruthers traces classical Greek teachings on memory to suggest that memory was not taught for the purposes of mindlessly repeating information on exams but rather instead to give students a way to invent from memory. Memoria, Carruthers suggests, "is most usefully thought of as a compositional art. The arts of memory are among the arts of thinking, especially involved with fostering the qualities we now revere as 'imagination' and 'creativity'" (9). The distinction between how we currently think about memory in our teaching of composition was interesting to me because much of the earliest writing in critical pedagogy railed against teaching techniques that relied upon memory.
Of course, the cultural place of memory has now shifted so we might raise a question whether or not the Greeks' notion of cultural memory is relevant for us--would work for our means of teaching critical thinking or invention; yet, after reading Carruthers, I'm wondering if we can't better make use of a notion of memory as a means to invention within our own curriculum as we certainly seem to hold the parallel values as those lauded by Carruthers. How, though, would/could we draw from these without bumping up against the flattened vision of the role of memory now more pervasive in our culture. And one other quick point before moving on further in Carruthers' book: I've always been curious about how memory, in our contemporary contexts, is dealt with much differently in other disciplines. I remember in linguistics, for example, a professor who once gave a lecture on memorizing all of the information in our area within our field. "You'll need to do this to be a professor," he'd say. At the same time that I took that class, I was also enrolled in 701 and so I struggled with what he said; yet, I don't disagree that learned material or "memorized facts" are indeed deeply interwoven with "subject matter" classes such as linguistics or history, etc. I think Carruthers' text gives us a way to see this learning as having important and cultural outcomes and that's why I'm wondering about how we might hold onto some of this today even given the cultural shift in our sense of memory.
In her next section of Chapter 1, "Locational Memory," Carruthers details this shift in how we think about memory in our societies. She states that the Latin word, inventio, has come into English in two ways. The first of these ways means "to invent" or "to have an inventive mind" (i.e. to be creative) yet, the second is "inventory". Carruthers posits that this etymological relationship reveals something important about how the Classical Greeks thought of invention: you must have inventory to create and invent.
Again here, we can see how this idea present in Classical society could be used to trouble some of the current approaches to teaching composition in our field. If we choose to "wallow in complexity" or present texts to our students in ways that highlight their ambiguous nature, I'm afraid that we're losing some rich potential for a shared sense or "memory" of this text as a tool for invention. This is not to say that we still don't use memory to invent; I think Carruthers would say we perhaps always are. Yet, it suggests that because we are not attuned to this relationship, because we don't value it, we can't make the best use of it even given the way that memory has culturally shifted in our culture.
In the next two sections of her text, Carruthers distinguishes her sense of locational memory from a different sense of memoria that centered on memories that only referenced what had happened in the past. She then goes on in the next section of her text, to tie the concept of inventio with that of intentio (15). Here, Carruthers explains that the concept of intentio was bound to a sense of "charity" in monasteries and that this notion then bound emotion to facts in our mind. Intentio was bound to location and we were only able to access these in tandem with one another. This then leads Carruthers fourth section "Like a Wise Master Builder" where Carruthers explains that architectural features of buildings served as a means of invention and not simply retrieval. Carruthers argues that at the same time as locational memory and our inventions of them are private in that they are built in the networks of our minds, they are also public and civic due to the fact that all buildings contained similar building materials (21).
The importance of locational memory is interesting here not only because it demonstrates how our material conditions shape our thoughts but because it, as Carruthers' chapter aims to, displays that concepts which we in our field have thought of as dangerous or opposed to critical thinking actually have a history that is aligned with it. That is, although the notion of locational memory isn't in use today, perhaps we should attempt to re-think some of these historical relationships as a means to push our thinking about concepts like memory in different directions that could support the social aims of composition. But then I wonder about the actual possibility of this given, as I mentioned before, our differently situated place of memory.
In Chapter One, "Collective Memory and memoria rerum," Carruthers suggests that memory is the "mother of all muses." By this, Carruthers means that memory, although it appeared near the end of the "five" parts of rhetoric, actually comes in much earlier as invention, Carruthers suggests is contingent on our memory. Carruthers traces classical Greek teachings on memory to suggest that memory was not taught for the purposes of mindlessly repeating information on exams but rather instead to give students a way to invent from memory. Memoria, Carruthers suggests, "is most usefully thought of as a compositional art. The arts of memory are among the arts of thinking, especially involved with fostering the qualities we now revere as 'imagination' and 'creativity'" (9). The distinction between how we currently think about memory in our teaching of composition was interesting to me because much of the earliest writing in critical pedagogy railed against teaching techniques that relied upon memory.
Of course, the cultural place of memory has now shifted so we might raise a question whether or not the Greeks' notion of cultural memory is relevant for us--would work for our means of teaching critical thinking or invention; yet, after reading Carruthers, I'm wondering if we can't better make use of a notion of memory as a means to invention within our own curriculum as we certainly seem to hold the parallel values as those lauded by Carruthers. How, though, would/could we draw from these without bumping up against the flattened vision of the role of memory now more pervasive in our culture. And one other quick point before moving on further in Carruthers' book: I've always been curious about how memory, in our contemporary contexts, is dealt with much differently in other disciplines. I remember in linguistics, for example, a professor who once gave a lecture on memorizing all of the information in our area within our field. "You'll need to do this to be a professor," he'd say. At the same time that I took that class, I was also enrolled in 701 and so I struggled with what he said; yet, I don't disagree that learned material or "memorized facts" are indeed deeply interwoven with "subject matter" classes such as linguistics or history, etc. I think Carruthers' text gives us a way to see this learning as having important and cultural outcomes and that's why I'm wondering about how we might hold onto some of this today even given the cultural shift in our sense of memory.
In her next section of Chapter 1, "Locational Memory," Carruthers details this shift in how we think about memory in our societies. She states that the Latin word, inventio, has come into English in two ways. The first of these ways means "to invent" or "to have an inventive mind" (i.e. to be creative) yet, the second is "inventory". Carruthers posits that this etymological relationship reveals something important about how the Classical Greeks thought of invention: you must have inventory to create and invent.
Again here, we can see how this idea present in Classical society could be used to trouble some of the current approaches to teaching composition in our field. If we choose to "wallow in complexity" or present texts to our students in ways that highlight their ambiguous nature, I'm afraid that we're losing some rich potential for a shared sense or "memory" of this text as a tool for invention. This is not to say that we still don't use memory to invent; I think Carruthers would say we perhaps always are. Yet, it suggests that because we are not attuned to this relationship, because we don't value it, we can't make the best use of it even given the way that memory has culturally shifted in our culture.
In the next two sections of her text, Carruthers distinguishes her sense of locational memory from a different sense of memoria that centered on memories that only referenced what had happened in the past. She then goes on in the next section of her text, to tie the concept of inventio with that of intentio (15). Here, Carruthers explains that the concept of intentio was bound to a sense of "charity" in monasteries and that this notion then bound emotion to facts in our mind. Intentio was bound to location and we were only able to access these in tandem with one another. This then leads Carruthers fourth section "Like a Wise Master Builder" where Carruthers explains that architectural features of buildings served as a means of invention and not simply retrieval. Carruthers argues that at the same time as locational memory and our inventions of them are private in that they are built in the networks of our minds, they are also public and civic due to the fact that all buildings contained similar building materials (21).
The importance of locational memory is interesting here not only because it demonstrates how our material conditions shape our thoughts but because it, as Carruthers' chapter aims to, displays that concepts which we in our field have thought of as dangerous or opposed to critical thinking actually have a history that is aligned with it. That is, although the notion of locational memory isn't in use today, perhaps we should attempt to re-think some of these historical relationships as a means to push our thinking about concepts like memory in different directions that could support the social aims of composition. But then I wonder about the actual possibility of this given, as I mentioned before, our differently situated place of memory.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Week 6 Reflection
I really like the way our discussions on the forums are unfolding with the exception that I wish there were more time in the semester and that these could be unfolding throughout the week. But even though these happen mainly at the week's end, I really appreciate the great questions people ask and the careful responses I've received to my concerns. I also really like the new forum this week in that it allows us some space to begin to pull things together from past weeks and to push forward in our thinking about how the digital spaces we are using relate to the readings we're doing.
Besides simply running short on time this week and not being able to attend to things in a way I would be happier about, I think things are generally going well. As I mentioned in my other post, the reading (particularly the Lauer) for this week are really providing me with a greater sense of context for these ideas and giving me some useful background of the field of rhetoric more generally.
Besides simply running short on time this week and not being able to attend to things in a way I would be happier about, I think things are generally going well. As I mentioned in my other post, the reading (particularly the Lauer) for this week are really providing me with a greater sense of context for these ideas and giving me some useful background of the field of rhetoric more generally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
