Multiliteracies and Passions

Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures, Ed. by Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis

Passions, Pedagogies, and 21st Century Technology, Ed. Gail E. Hawisher and Cynthia L. Selfe 

These two books have similarities when it comes to technology and technology pedagogy.  However, Multiliteracies deals more with the change and development of pedagogies.  The first couple of chapters were a bit disconcerting in that they seemed to say that change is good and what was done in the past is now inadequate.  For example, The New London Group records this statement:  “key terms and interests of various postmodern and critical discourses focusing on liberation, the destruction of hierarchies, and the honouring of diversity…” (11).  It translates into “the new way is freedom and inclusion; the old way of structure must be destroyed”.  This stance has some positive twists of logic, but it doesn’t consider that too much freedom and no standards create chaos. 

Writing for understanding and communicating effectively have a basis in commonality.  This commonality is founded in grammar, syntax, and other rules.  Rules are intended to be liberating, not constricting.  For example, punctuating so the reader can understand what has been written is considerate and thoughtful.  The reader doesn’t have to translate what has been said or search for abstract meaning or intention of the writer. 

Through the Designs of Meaning, the reader can use knowledge to build more knowledge.  Granted, people from different cultures have different Available Designs, but in order to communicate effectively, the Designing stage should provide methods of inclusion.  The Redesigned should be something that can be shared and understood in a community.  

Gunther Kress, in both Passions (ch. 4) and Multiliteracies(chs. 7 & 9), that senses can “from the beginning, guarantees the multimodality of our semiotic world” (184).  In other words, an individual’s senses, and further, his or her background(socially and psychologically) contributes to the interpretations of input.   It is through representation and communication that external interprecations are effected.  Nevertheless, the closer people can come to common definitions, common rules and expectations, and collaborative meaning, the greater chance of success with understanding.  Kress says, “So the various modes brought together in the multimodal system of language are generally speaking highly elaborated, in syntax, in lexis, and phonology…that is, the system of objects integrally involved with social practices…” (191). 

Both books attempt to identify new methods and technologies, deconstruct them so as to reconstruct them into observing the changes and how these changes affect communication, and put these complex changes into context.

Pedagogies of a Basic Comp Instructor

I teach English 0890 and English 0990.  These classes are for those students who score below the required level to take English 1010 or Freshman English.  In other words, their scores are below 18 on the ACT or 15 for English 0890.  Some of the students are ESL, some are brilliant underachievers, some missed out on basic concepts somewhere, and some have learning disabilities.  Because of their diverse backgrounds, I must approach the students with various pedagogies. 

The majority of my class is basic grammar and sentence construction.  The beginning of the course is focused mainly on Process Pedagogy and Basic Writing Pedagogy.  We start with practice paragraphs wherein the students create a body paragraph on a rhetorical topic.  The process is followed closely in each practice paragraph: brainstorming, outline, draft, revision.  In addition, we concentrate on word choice and standard English syntax. 

Throughout the class we also use Collaborative Pedagogy and Technical Pedagogy.  The students are able to access WebCT on the internet.  Before they write a practice paragraph, the must first read an article on a similar topic and respond to prompts in discussion groups in WebCT.  Through the prompts and responses, they are able to gather brainstorming ideas and reflect on the topics each week.  They also post their reflections for the week in their journals, which are also located in WebCT.  However, these are private, and only the student and instructor are able to access individual journals.

 Finally, once the students understand the concepts of paragraph construction, they are ready to begin essays.  Each essay is based on a type of rhetorical mode.  Thus, we also incorporate the Rhetorical Pedagogy.  These essays are constructed in a standard five paragraph format.

It is my plan to begin using a Visual Pedagogy in the future because I am being persuaded that this could be a helpful teaching method for the level of students that I teach.

In spite of all the relatively new pedagogical methods being introduced, I strongly believe that students must begin with the basics of writing (the old fashioned way).  I will leave it to the English 1010 instructors to use unproven but engaging methods of composition.

Passions, Pedagogies, and 21st Century Technologies

Review of Ch. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13

 In general, this book covers several points of view about the pros and cons of technology in writing.  There are some valid perspectives in spite of the outdatedness of some of the articles.  It provides an interesting insight into the fears and/or concerns of educators at the time it was published (1999). 

Specifically, “Access” by Charles Moran is a bit unfair.  In spite of all of the data and facts provided, there has been a change since the time this article was written.  Although there are still many students who may not own a computer, many libraries and schools are keeping up with the race for techology to be up-to-date and available for student use.  Thus, taking into consideration that this article is outdated, it contains some valid points about the transition in technology.

Chapter 5, “Petals on a Wet Black Bough,”  is formatted in a way that catches a reader’s attention.  However, I am rather old fashioned when it comes to reading articles.  Perhaps it is because this artile reads like a zine that I don’t take it too seriously.  In other words, the article loses some credibility in that it is not as “professional” as expected.  The content, however, is thought provoking.

“From Pencils to Pixels” is particularly interesting to me because I enjoy learning the history of something, whether it is a theory or product, and how it progresses mophologically.  The article provides a perspective of writing that is innovative.  One would hardly consider a pencil to be cutting edge or controversial, but Baron points out how pencils did, indeed, shake up the writing world.  In this light, computer and technology must be considered equally controversial as a new medium. 

In addition to the articles referenced above, the other authors allow technology to be considered as a unique pedagogy when critics would say that technology is no more than a tool.  Admittedly, there are valid points on both sides of the argument.  The authors of “Passions”, Hawisher adn Selfe, have compiled some compelling rhetorical positions on pedagogy and technology. 

Textbook Review

Everything’s an Argument (with readings) by Andrea A. Lunsford, John J. Ruszkiewicz, and Keith Walters

This textbook should be categorized as (comprehensively) Rhetorical Pedagogy.  It is an impressive compilation of various forms of argumentation.  This textbook would be a very effective tool if one were teaching a class on Rhetoric.  It is exhaustive in that it covers every angle of argumentation from humor and visual to unethical fallacies and documentation of facts. 

Technology and the Teaching of Writing

“The Shape of Text to Come: The Texture of Print on Screens” by Stephen A. Bernhardt

Published in College Composition and Communication.  May 1993, Vol. 44, No. 2.

Stephen A. Bernhardt proposes that electronic media exploits the dimensions writing.  He says that on-screen text tends to be:

• Situationally Embedded – (Text is bound up within the context of the action.)
• Interactive – (Text invites the reader to actively engage, both physically and mentally, with it.)
• Functionally Mapped – (Text displays are cues to the readers.)
• Modulars – (Text is contained in blocks or chunks.)
• Navigable – (Text supports reader movement across large pools of information.)
• Spacious – (Text is unconstrained by physicality.)
• Graphically Rich – (Text integrates graphic display to facilitate interaction.)
• Customizable and Publishable – (Text is fluid, changing, and dynamic.)

 Readers are really using text rather than reading text insomuch that they can seek and maneuver the information to conform to their needs. 
Reading becomes more functional and interactive through electronic media.  For example, hot links provide the ability to multitask learning in non-linear ways.  Bernhardt points out, “Through two-dimensional, screens offer the compelling illusion of depth” in a layering effect (163). Ultimately, the written text and electronic media will form a “cross-breeding” or interrelation of information. Moreover, the possibilities evident through the use of electronic media produce a non-static environment that can take reading and writing to levels that paper text cannot.

The Pedagogy of Basic Writing

“What We Know – and Don’t Know – About Remedial Writing” by Andrea A. Lunsford

Published in College Composition and Cumminication, February 1978, Vol. 29, No. 1

Andrea Lunsford developed a pilot program for remedial English students.  The project was based on ninety-two students randomly chosen based on the ACT English test.  The majority of the students were white (75%) from all over the state of
Ohio.  Through a series of diagnostic tests, Lunsford discovered a correlation between low reading scores and low writing scores, and, of course, low comprehension.  Because reading scores were low, the paucity of vocabulary comprehension interfered with the ability of the students to grasp the main concepts of the essays.  Lunsford directed her project toward the improvement of reading and vocabulary.  Evidently, syntactic structures improved.  However, Lunsford warns that teachers should not attempt to attack all errors at once.  To be more effectual, the teacher should combine grammar with the students’ own writings. 

Just as important as observing what and how writers do, it is also important to observe why they write the way they do.  Lunsford noted, “Our students were all both poor readers and poor writers, and their gains in these two areas clearly paralleled each other.  Furthermore, as our students’ ability to manipulate syntactic structures improved, so did their ability to draw inferences and make logical connections” (51).  Lunsford reiterates the importance of not reducing the reading level of material because this will actually deter students from sharpening their thinking skills. 

 

Admittedly, the challenge, the time, and the frustrations of teaching remedial writers is exhaustive, yet all the pressures are worthwhile.  

The Pedagogy of Writing Across the Curriculum

“Writing to Learn: Writing across the Disciplines” by Anne J. Herrington

Published in College English, April 1981, Vol. 43, No. 4

Anne J. Herringtion presents the idea that identifies the “correspondences between the act of learning and the act of writing” (379).  She proposes that according to Janet Emig, “a persuasive theoretical argument for writing is a ‘central academic process’”.  In other words, in order for learning to achieve some success, writing should be used in all disciplines.  Writing should be part of every curriculum, and not just English classes, because writing provides students with a way to discover and communicate the ideas within that discipline.  Herrington directed a two-year project in which she train faculty from a variety of disciplines to implement writing as a component of their courses.  She held workshops and helped each faculty member to create writing assignments to correspond with the context of the course.  She instructed each in full rhetorical concepts (topic, purpose, and audience) and followed through on the evaluation of this project.  The feedback from students was exceptionally positive.  Ninety percent of the students evaluated indicated that “the writing was a powerful way of learning for them [and that] the writing added at least in some degree to their understanding of course material” (381).  The result was the correlation of writing and connecting to the material and synthesizing it. 

The writing followed a process of defining the task, formulating ideas, and shaping these ideas in a series of drafts, culminating in a coherent final written project.  Herrington encouraged teachers to create opportunities for the students to share the writing in class.  Overall, this process allowed the students to focus on the material and use writing as a discovery process.

Critical Pedagogy

“A Dialogue: Culture, Language, and Race”  by Paulo Freire and Donaldo P. Macedo

Published in Harvard Educational Review, 1995, Vol. 6 

This article is presented as a dialogue between Freire and Macedo in a discussion or dialogue about dialogical teaching methods.  Thus, the article in itself is an example of Critical Pedagogy in that the dialogue is about dialogue.  Further, it is about the mistakes teachers make in form and presentation or accuracy of the method.  When the process become bureaucratized or methodologically impaired, it ceases to be an effective and is not connected to an object of learning or knowledge.  Freire explains, “What dialogical educators must do is maintain, on the one hand, their epistemological curiosity and, on the other hand, always attempt to increase their critical reflection in the process of creating pedagogical  spaces where students become apprentices in the rigors of exploration”  (5).  In addition, Freire says that the teacher must allow the student to express alternative viewpoints with multiple points of reference.  Education is directive, yet the ability to become educated is based on the ability to understand in spite of language and diversity. 

Collaborative Pedagogy

“Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversation of Mankind’” by Kenneth A. Bruffee

Published in College English, November 1984, Vol. 46, No. 7.

Kenneth A. Bruffee explains that collaborative learning originated through medical education wherein students were asked to diagnose a patient collaboratively instead of individually, and the results were faster and more accurate.  This led to the alternative classroom where the instructors had the students practice peer tutoring.  The teacher “sets the problem and organizes students to work it out collaboratively’ (637). 

The other method of collaborative learning is when students engage in peer criticism or commenting on a peer’s paper, paraphrase it, and make suggestions on how the peer might improve the work.  These ideas on collaborative learning derive from the theory that learning is a social construct.  Bruffee says, “To think well as individuals we must learn to think well collectively – that is, we must learn to converse well” (640).  This idea leads to the ability to foster communication within a social context and the relationship to original creative thought.  Self-talk is another branch of this idea.  The ability to talk through ideas with oneself derives from the ability to discuss ideas with others. 

 

Collaborative learning is the most effective when students are able to learn those things that are pertinent and useful to business, government, and other professions.   Writing within the context of a given field enables writing that is directed to a common group, a community of equals or peers.

 

Finally, Bruffee suggests that “organizing collaborative learning effectively requires doing more than throwing students together with their peers with little or no guidance or preparation.  To do that is merely to perpetuate, perhaps even aggravate, the many possible negative efforts of peer group influence…” (652).  Ultimately it is the “social engagement in intellectual pursuits” where collaborative learning is the most effective.

Rhetorical Pedagogy

“I.A. Richards” by Sonja K. Foss, Karen A. Foss, and Robert Trapp

Published in Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric, 3rd Ed.

The authors give a biographical portrayal of I.A. Richards and his academic background.  Richards believes the study of rhetoric should include “a philosophic discipline aiming at a master of the fundamental laws of the use of language” (23).  In other words, language has everything to do with rhetoric in that it begins with the analysis of words.  According to Richards, words are the smallest units for conveying meaning.  While other rhetoricians focus on arguments and speeches, Richards focuses on words as the central place in the “order of knowledge”, and the meaning of words as central to the theory of rhetoric. 

Richards developed a theory called the semantic triangle.  Each corner of the triangle represents a component in the process of meaning:  symbol, reference, and thought.  In order to understand one another, each person must agree that the symbol has the same common meaning.  An exchange in communication is comprehended by meaning, and the definition of words is a way of eliminating misunderstanding.  Richard distinguishes seven functions of language: (1) Indicating, (2) Characterizing, (3) Realizing, (4) Valuing, (5) Influencing, (6) Controlling, and (7) Purposing.  At any step in the process, miscommunication or misunderstanding can occur.  The use of metaphor can be more than a figure of speech.  It can produce a realized understanding or common meaning.