Research and papers
- Follow Erin A. Frost on WordPress.com
Find me on LinkedIn
Themesaccess activism authorship bodies class composition composition&rhetoric criminal justice culture digital rhetorics disability efficiency feminisms gaming gender girls health hypertext identity journalism medical rhetoric methodologies methods pedagogy race race+rhetoric+technology reproduction research rhetorics of risk science sexuality technical communication technology visible rhetoric women
Tag Archives: hypertext
I’ve been thinking for a long time about ways to use Pinterest in the classroom, and I have friends who have actually mustered the energy to take on that challenge. Lo and behold, something even more targeted for such purposes!
Learnist appears a lot like Pinterest, but is specifically targeted at, well, learning. Even though I detest programs that force me to use my Facebook profile to sign up, I was intrigued enough to take the plunge. And now I have to learn a new vocabulary. “Pins” are now “learnings.”
I’m not sure I like the progress narrative that’s happening here:
But I am really interested in the idea of a sort of intellectual Pinterest, and I’m excited to see if this thing catches on. Happy Pin … er … Learning!
The literature students at my school don’t have too many options in their coursework to focus specifically on literature pedagogy. As a result, a couple of smart students have created a summer mini-conference on this topic. This is its third year, but the first I attended, and I was happy to discover that much of what I learned was very relevant for rhetoric/composition pedagogy as well. I’m including some of the most important notes I took here. If any readers are interested in something below, let me know and I can hook you up with whoever presented on that topic.
Teaching Difficult Topics led by Chris Desantis, Julie Jung, Oren Whitesell
- When discussing oppressive institutions–we’ll use race as an example–start by talking about the historical context. Don’t open discussion until after students have this common ground established. (In this phase, be careful to create a common vocabulary and to consider how themes circulate in language.)
- Next, introduce social construction. (Note: It’s OK to “shut a student down” if she or he refuses to buy into the basic premises of the class. You can think of this less as silencing a student and more as eliminating an obstacle to other students’ learning. Hopefully it doesn’t happen often.)
- Open discussion: Possible topics in this example include the collective silence on whiteness, connections between texts and student lives, and implications of physical spaces that produce whiteness and blackness, etc.
Ogbu’s definition of education: systematic eradication of viable alternatives (I’m not sure what I think of this. It sounds a lot like bell hooks’ definition of oppression)
- Making Whiteness by Grace Hale
- Passing by Nella Larsson
- Light in August by William Faulkner
- Rhetorical Listening by Krista Ratcliffe
- Space & Place by Yi-Fu Tuan
- Unspeakable Conversations by Harriet McBride-Johnson
- Refiguring Rhetorica by Jay Dolmage and Cynthia Lewiecki-Wilson
- I Was a Teenage Fairy by Francesca Lia Block
- anything by Toni Morrison, Audre Lorde, Nancy Mairs
Teach not what to think, but how logic works
Always consider power relations in and out of the classroom
Teaching Digital Texts led by Cheryl Ball
Remember: A 10-page paper is not nearly equivalent to a 10-minute video. A proficient producer of video typically takes 200 minutes for every minute produced. Consider a 2-3 minute video equivalent to a 10-page paper.
Sample digital project outline for a themed class – Using wiki technology to interlink all student work
- Establish common key terms
- Have an individual draft due by midterm
- Have students read others’ drafts during second part of semester
- Links/revisions/additional pages due by finals
Linguistics led by Aaron Smith
- Consider that linguists study speech communities; historical linguists must use written texts (literature)
- Take care not to apply sociolinguistic understandings from modern times to historical contexts
- Consider how linguistic usage is used to construct literary characters. This may include elements like the a- prefix (I’m a-goin’) or h-dropping (‘umble beginnings).
- Remember that ideology is shown in language
- When teaching, narrow the focus. First, select a form to focus on, then prove to students that they know a grammar (disrupt their belief that we’re in some sort of historical grammatical decline), then choose texts with appropriate linguistic variation.
Making Sense of Evaluations led by Claire Lamonica
- The most important different in evaluations is understanding the purpose of formative vs. summative evaluation. Summative evaluation happens at the end of the term; formative evaluation can be used to improve teaching.
- 360-degree evaluation: Collect evaluations from self, supervisors, peers, students
- For student evaluations, collect early so that you can learn during the class. Consider doing a 1-minute paper at the end of each class. This is where students quickly write the most important thing they learned and the muddiest point from the day’s work. Also consider incorporating weekly reports and/or a midterm chat to get mid-semester evaluations.
- Frequent evaluation teaches students to think and write evaluatively; it’s not just for the teacher.
- Take into account, when reading summative evaluations, the things that students are and are not really qualified to comment on
- When working through evaluations, first categorize responses into positive, negative, suggestions, and other. Then synthesize results, count and a rank them, reflect, and prioritize. Remember to work on only one or two things at a time so that you don’t get overwhelmed.
Teaching with Film led by Sally Parry and Bob McLaughlin
Challenge: Getting students to engage films as texts instead of passive consumers
Advantage: FIlms are able to fill in more historical context
- Remember to teach film conventions, often comparing them to parallel conventions in printed texts
- Incorporate historical context. For example, study the Hayes Code and teach students to know what signals meant what sort of action (to get around the censors)
- Defamiliarize students with film media by starting with (or only showing) black-and-white films
- Teach and complicate themes. (For example, in film noir, the bad guy is often a veteran. Why? What does this mean?)
Some films to consider, taken from a WWII culture class
- Miracle on Morgan’s Creek
- Casa Blanca
- The Best Years of Our Lives
I just finished reading Send: Why People Email So Badly and How to Do It Better by David Shipley and Will Schwalbe. I have to say I’m impressed; I bought the book thinking it might have material I could teach as part of my Technical Writing course, and I did not expect to sit down and read it in one sitting. I also didn’t expect to laugh while doing so. Who knew a book about writing emails could be funny and engaging? Well, it can be.
Send is actually an acronym, and this is one part of the book I’m not a fan of. It struck me as a little forced. Simple, effective, necessary, and done simply don’t summarize this book very well. But if that’s my only complaint, I’m still a happy customer.
The best part of the book is the approach it takes to rhetorical situation as a complex construction. For example, it deals with tone from an audience-centered perspective: “If you don’t consciously insert tone into an email, a kind of universal default tone won’t automatically be conveyed. Instead, the message written without regard to tone becomes a blank screen onto which the reader projects his own fears, prejudices, and anxieties” (10). Shipley and Schwalbe describe email as “democratic” in a great equalizer sort of way, meaning context is often whitewashed in the inbox (if not in the email itself). Context can also be deceptive at the level of grammar and syntax. For example, the authors assert that short, simple sentences intensify meaning and complex, rhythmic sentences soften meaning (129). They’re citing John F. Kennedy’s writings to prove this, but it does seem to apply to email.
One of the most interesting theoretical contentions in this book is that email “removes the temporal and physical barriers that keep” wild emotions in check in other situations (177). Of course, anyone who has emailed for more than a month already knows this. But it’s interesting to see that vague sense of danger put into words. And if that articulation isn’t enough, the authors give a long list of examples of when the send button proved quite dangerous, from the scandal involving Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick to myriad stories of high-powered business people being fired/indicted/shamed based on email evidence (think Harry Stonecipher, Mark Foley, Charles Rosenthal)(200).
And here’s one final gem, perhaps my favorite, since it goes along with visible rhetoric: “In a recent survey, many employers said they would not interview a candidate if they didn’t like the font on his application or cover letter” (96). Next time someone giggles about my teaching about font and typeface in Technical Writing, I’ll have a ready comeback!
OK, I’m hooked. I left off my last Remix post by asking what Lessig was advocating and what it looks like, and hoping that I’d find out in Parts 2 and 3. Lessig delivered in Part 2.
This is the part of the book that the title comes from: “Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy.” Lessig is suggesting a hybrid between sharing and commercial (or thee and me) economies, and he provides numerous online models for what this looks like. My only real complaint at this point is that I, the reader, still have to do the hard work of mapping those examples onto non-online interaction. If the U.S. were to model copyright/trademark law after YouTube practices, what does that really mean? (Is it even really possible?)
On the bright side, we (the U.S.) already have one of the components that Lessig describes as integral to a sharing (and thus also a hybrid) economy: diversity. “Diversity in experience and worldviews, so s to help a project fill in the blind spots inherent in any particular view” (165). True, some will argue that most U.S. citizens have a very Westernized worldview. I would argue, though, that the necessary diversity does exist here … if only the powers that be are clever enough to seek the expertise of those with perspectives different from their own. (The anecdote that immediately springs to mind is Abraham Lincoln’s filling his Cabinet with his political “enemies” so as to have a broader diversity in his think tank.) What I’m not sure of, though, is if any government endeavor will ever be able to command the sort of volunteer power necessary to do something like this. Lessig hints in this part that he may feel the same way, but he seems more perturbed by the particular practices of our government rather than the inherent trappings of any government. I’m hoping there is more wisdom on this subject to come in Part 3.
I also really enjoyed Lessig’s inclusion of Sherry Turkle (starting on page 217). Theoretically, he could have done a lot more with her work on online identities, but I think the point about shifting identities demonstrating the value of generosity is well made. In the end, the thing that destroys the goodwill of hypertextual communities is greed. And, interestingly, the greed/generosity balance is both political and religious hotspot for many people even outside online culture. (I’m thinking income tax debates for politics, and for Christianity, at least, the passage about it being easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to go to Heaven. I can’t speak for any other religions, but I do get a sense of the same ideal from those that I have any experience at all with.)
Perhaps my favorite bit of this part of the book is on page 130, where Lessig says, “For reasons at the core of this book, inspiring more creativity is more important than whether you or I like the creativity we’ve inspired.” This passage really resonated for me. Part of that is probably because of my pedagogical stance regarding creativity. For every project I assign in my English 101 and 249 classes, I explain the learning goals and tell students that I am open to creative reinterpretations of the project as long as they still meet those goals or similar goals that I approve. Although I haven’t always liked my students’ creative reinterpretations (a wiki on alcohol-related expertise, even by non-minor students, could seem suspect), they have always responded excitedly to this possibility. There is no doubt in my mind that the students who take this option spend more time thinking in more ways about the rhetorical situation they are placing their work into. I also have reason to believe that there investment in the project makes them more likely to continue writing for the public in the future. (My evidence for this includes both email updates from and Facebook groups formed by former students.)
But, really, I think my attraction to that observation on page 130 goes even deeper than pedagogical ideals. There is something very instinctual that tells me that creativity is important to humanity, even when it’s creativity I don’t like. I suppose I’m interpreting creativity to mean most of the things mentioned in the First Amendment, which has been so basic to my upbringing that acting on it does feel instinctual (though I recognize it’s learned). But I also think there’s the possibility that it goes even deeper. Things like art therapy make me believe that there’s something a little more basic in human nature that really needs to embrace Lessig’s RW culture.
For now, I’m excited to read Chapter 10 in Part 3, which Lessig said in Part 2 will deal with the Creative Commons license. Since Lessig is a cofounder of that project, it will be really intriguing to learn about his vision for it. I particularly like his summary of it on page 226: “Take and share my work freely. Let it become part of the sharing economy. But if you want to carry this work over to the commercial economy, you must ask me first. Depending upon the offer, I may or may not say yes.”