I wanted to post this link to Warnock's blog because I think it relates to our discussion. I've been checking it for a while now, and I think it's fun to watch the different parts of his book come out in the posts. Anyway, here it is:
http://onlinewritingteacher.blogspot.com/
Also, I think it's curious that he is cofounder of the company (Subjective Metrics, Inc.) that developed WayPoint assessment management software (he mentions this in Chapter 10 when he is discussing peer review):
http://www.waypointoutcomes.com/
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Article Review #3: "Understanding 'Internet Plagiarism'"
Blog #3:
Note: For my fellow 795/895 students, full-text of the article can be found at http://tinyurl.com/2479yd4 (this links to the journal through ODU Library's proxy, so you'll need your university email and UIN).
As I began to focus my collaboration unit for this course's final project, I realized that I wanted the "topic" to be something of practical use to the student. Coincidentally, around the same time this course started, I found myself embroiled in academic honesty disputes with a few of my online students. As I reflected on plagiarism (what it means to me, what I think it should mean to students, what it actually means to students), I realized that plagiarism could be both a topic for the unit and also a way to reinforce the very collaborative principles I have set out to endorse through this project. Thus, for this blog entry and the one that follows, I am surveying two pieces dealing with plagiarism, its forms, its implications, and (dare I say) its possibilities.
The first of these two articles, then, is Rebecca Howard Moore's "Understanding 'Internet Plagiarism'" (2007). Moore addresses the issue from the viewpoint of the instructor, but quite differently from the typical water-cooler gripes that we have all heard about the topic. In fact, Howard uses the article not only to question how we understand plagiarism, but further to call out those who would seek to convince the writing teacher that the Internet has somehow given rise to a plagiarism epidemic. Howard seeks to shape the discussion in such a way that it might help teachers better understand the Internet-author relationship. Implicit in her argument is the supposition that being so informed might enable teachers to better present that relationship to our students. Such a discussion would enable us to address issues of plagiarism and academic honesty in concrete, usable, non-accusatory terms.
As Howard surveys the various revolutions that have washed over writing and authorship (the printing press, the patronage system, the advent of popular literacy, the mass-marketing of texts), she situate new media as only the newest iteration of a long line of camps seeking to privilege authorship. In discussing, for example, the prominence of 19th century detractors of "mass literacy," Howard writes
Although I must say that the article takes a turn I had not anticipated, I find the arguments riveting, and I am truly excited about the prospect of folding this into my project and also into my overall philosophy of teaching. In my next blog (teaser) I will discuss an article that deals with assemblage and intertexuality, ideas that I think can empower both teachers and students to overcome what Howard calls "the specter of 'Internet plagiarism'." By opening up the dialogue about what it means to be an author and how the Internet might or might not change that role, I think we can allow our students power over their own writing and their notions of how best to interact with the writing of others.
Howard, R. M. (2007). Understanding “Internet plagiarism.” Computers and Composition, 24(1), 3-15.
Note: For my fellow 795/895 students, full-text of the article can be found at http://tinyurl.com/2479yd4 (this links to the journal through ODU Library's proxy, so you'll need your university email and UIN).
As I began to focus my collaboration unit for this course's final project, I realized that I wanted the "topic" to be something of practical use to the student. Coincidentally, around the same time this course started, I found myself embroiled in academic honesty disputes with a few of my online students. As I reflected on plagiarism (what it means to me, what I think it should mean to students, what it actually means to students), I realized that plagiarism could be both a topic for the unit and also a way to reinforce the very collaborative principles I have set out to endorse through this project. Thus, for this blog entry and the one that follows, I am surveying two pieces dealing with plagiarism, its forms, its implications, and (dare I say) its possibilities.
The first of these two articles, then, is Rebecca Howard Moore's "Understanding 'Internet Plagiarism'" (2007). Moore addresses the issue from the viewpoint of the instructor, but quite differently from the typical water-cooler gripes that we have all heard about the topic. In fact, Howard uses the article not only to question how we understand plagiarism, but further to call out those who would seek to convince the writing teacher that the Internet has somehow given rise to a plagiarism epidemic. Howard seeks to shape the discussion in such a way that it might help teachers better understand the Internet-author relationship. Implicit in her argument is the supposition that being so informed might enable teachers to better present that relationship to our students. Such a discussion would enable us to address issues of plagiarism and academic honesty in concrete, usable, non-accusatory terms.
As Howard surveys the various revolutions that have washed over writing and authorship (the printing press, the patronage system, the advent of popular literacy, the mass-marketing of texts), she situate new media as only the newest iteration of a long line of camps seeking to privilege authorship. In discussing, for example, the prominence of 19th century detractors of "mass literacy," Howard writes
John Trimbur (2000) noted that many members of the upper class regarded popular literacy with suspicion; it had the potential to fuel discontent and even revolution (p. 287). Many also feared that mass literacy would produce a market for texts that appealed to the masses’ sensibilities. Nathaniel Hawthorne fumed about the “scribbling women” whose shallow, sentimental works were gaining a larger audience than his. John Carey (1992) asserted that the intelligentsia responded by promoting the notion of “high” and “low” literacy.Clearly, she argues, revolutions such as these will be met with fear, distrusts, and even contempt, so then it makes sense that this wave of hysteria regarding plagiarism would take hold just as new media threatens/promises to offer up the text to legions of new readers and authors.
Although I must say that the article takes a turn I had not anticipated, I find the arguments riveting, and I am truly excited about the prospect of folding this into my project and also into my overall philosophy of teaching. In my next blog (teaser) I will discuss an article that deals with assemblage and intertexuality, ideas that I think can empower both teachers and students to overcome what Howard calls "the specter of 'Internet plagiarism'." By opening up the dialogue about what it means to be an author and how the Internet might or might not change that role, I think we can allow our students power over their own writing and their notions of how best to interact with the writing of others.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Article Review #2: "Sharing Our Toys: Cooperative Learning versus Collaborative Learning"
Article #2:
If, as Kevin mentioned in Monday's class, we can think of composition studies in camps, then some might argue that the director of Camp Collaboration is none other than Kenneth A. Bruffee. This article, "Sharing Our Toys: Cooperative Learning versus Collaborative Learning," piggybacks on many of Bruffee's earlier works, including such seminal works as his landmark 1984 essay "Collaborative Learning and the 'Conversation of Mankind'" and his 1985 textbook A Short Course in Writing. In his earlier works as well as in this article, Bruffee discusses the entry of students into the discourse of the academy, and he points out that teachers play a vital role in helping students navigate this transition. Although "Sharing Our Toys" is several years old, it addresses the main concern of my project: differentiating between collaborative and cooperative learning in the writing classroom.
At the heart of this article, as the name suggests, is Bruffee's attempt to parse out the differences between cooperative and collaborative learning. Although the two words both bring to mind the much-maligned notion of "group work," the differences between cooperating and collaborating reveal themselves when we consider the power relationships of the players in a given environment. Cooperative learning, which Bruffee argues dominates the landscape of primary and even some of secondary education, places the teacher in the position of power. This enables the students to learn to work with one another in a non-competitive environment, relying on the teacher as the leader and knowledge-maker. Collaborative learning, on the other hand, shifts the onus of power from the teacher to the learners, allowing (and often inviting) insecurity and sometimes conflict, but also providing an environment in which students seek and create knowledge themselves. This model, then, better serves to acculturate students to the discourse communities they seek to join in the academy. Bruffee points out, after all, that the university instructor should help students "cope interdependently with the challenges generated by and within this encompassing community of uncertainty, ambiguity, and doubt" (p. 16).
I am tailoring my project to an online first-year writing class for TCC, and these ideas certainly resonate with me as I consider how I will frame the assignments and discussions required for the unit. This article is especially applicable because of the preconceived notions that many of the students in such a class will likely bring with them. For many students, TCC's ENG 111 is their very first online class, not to mention often their very first college class period. This means that the notions they have about "group work" often stem from their experiences in their K-12 learning, experiences that, as Bruffee points out, may well have leaned more toward the cooperative model rather than the collaborative one that we seek to establish in the college writing classroom.
Bruffee, K. A. (1995). Sharing Our Toys: Cooperative Learning versus Collaborative Learning. Change, 27(1), 12-18.
If, as Kevin mentioned in Monday's class, we can think of composition studies in camps, then some might argue that the director of Camp Collaboration is none other than Kenneth A. Bruffee. This article, "Sharing Our Toys: Cooperative Learning versus Collaborative Learning," piggybacks on many of Bruffee's earlier works, including such seminal works as his landmark 1984 essay "Collaborative Learning and the 'Conversation of Mankind'" and his 1985 textbook A Short Course in Writing. In his earlier works as well as in this article, Bruffee discusses the entry of students into the discourse of the academy, and he points out that teachers play a vital role in helping students navigate this transition. Although "Sharing Our Toys" is several years old, it addresses the main concern of my project: differentiating between collaborative and cooperative learning in the writing classroom.
At the heart of this article, as the name suggests, is Bruffee's attempt to parse out the differences between cooperative and collaborative learning. Although the two words both bring to mind the much-maligned notion of "group work," the differences between cooperating and collaborating reveal themselves when we consider the power relationships of the players in a given environment. Cooperative learning, which Bruffee argues dominates the landscape of primary and even some of secondary education, places the teacher in the position of power. This enables the students to learn to work with one another in a non-competitive environment, relying on the teacher as the leader and knowledge-maker. Collaborative learning, on the other hand, shifts the onus of power from the teacher to the learners, allowing (and often inviting) insecurity and sometimes conflict, but also providing an environment in which students seek and create knowledge themselves. This model, then, better serves to acculturate students to the discourse communities they seek to join in the academy. Bruffee points out, after all, that the university instructor should help students "cope interdependently with the challenges generated by and within this encompassing community of uncertainty, ambiguity, and doubt" (p. 16).
I am tailoring my project to an online first-year writing class for TCC, and these ideas certainly resonate with me as I consider how I will frame the assignments and discussions required for the unit. This article is especially applicable because of the preconceived notions that many of the students in such a class will likely bring with them. For many students, TCC's ENG 111 is their very first online class, not to mention often their very first college class period. This means that the notions they have about "group work" often stem from their experiences in their K-12 learning, experiences that, as Bruffee points out, may well have leaned more toward the cooperative model rather than the collaborative one that we seek to establish in the college writing classroom.
Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative Learning and the 'Conversation of Mankind'. College English, 46 (7), 635-52.
Bruffee, K. A. (1985). A Short Course in Writing. New York: Longman.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Article Review #1: "Decentered, Disconnected, and Digitized: The Importance of Shared Space"
Article #1:
I discovered "Decentered, Disconnected, and Digitized: The Importance of Shared Space" in a cursory search of back issues of the online journal Kairos, and the promise of the title coupled with the ingenuity of the web-text format piqued my curiosity. This study looked at six courses using online writing instruction; half were f2f in a wired lab, and the other half were hybrid courses. Data was collected through teacher observation and through two student surveys administered online.
The authors are quick to situate themselves in the discourse of collaborative pedagogy. Citing standards like Kenneth Bruffee, Kathleen Blake Yancey, and Lester Faigley*, they quickly establish the terms for their model of collaboration (and remind the reader of the distinction between collaboration and cooperation). The authors also engage more current scholarship about online writing instruction (Hewett and Ehmann, 2005; Paloff and Pratt, 2001 and 2005*). The authors, then, reflect upon their findings in the context of both collaborative pedagogy in general and also more recent pedagogy about writing in digital spaces.
Two of their conclusions struck me as quite salient. First, they note their own surprise at the students' opinions of and reactions to the notion of collaboration:
Second, Brunk-Chavez and Miller make the assertion early on that "a digitized classroom creates and maintains shared spaces in ways that a f2f classroom cannot." Although verifying just how (and how much) this statement holds true would certainly be a herculean task, the rewards of such labor would be immeasurable. Thus, this contention merits further attention and discussion, and I hope that future researchers will continue to explore the benefits, limitations, and implications of space in OWI.
Unfortunately, the study itself proved fairly inadequate, and I must admit to being somewhat disappointed in the methodology and the conclusions the study offers. For reasons not fully explained by the authors, only 57 of the study's 150 participants answered the first survey, but then 117 of the participants responded to the second survey. As the authors point out, this prevents them from being able to draw conclusions about change over time or to make connections even about general student perception (after all, it is impossible to determine the overlap between the first group of 57 and the second group of 117).
This leads me to what is perhaps my most pressing question: is there reliable empirical evidence about collaboration in teaching writing at a distance? Many articles have bemoaned the lack of actual empirical studies as the basis for sound pedagogy, and even Brunk-Chavez and Miller themselves make mention of Hewett and Ehmann's admonition of "the relatively low value given to proving claims made for social constructivism" in OWI (2005). I hope that a deeper survey of the literature will lead me to the kinds of research that raise the bar for what empirical data for composition studies should look like.
*I have noted the following works that were cited in the Brunk-Chavez and Miller web-text; their complete Works Cited list is available through their web-text:
Brunk-Chavez, B. and Miller, S. J. (2007). Decentered, Disconnected, and Digitized: The Importance of Shared Space. Kairos, 11(2). Retrieved from http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/11.2/index.html
I discovered "Decentered, Disconnected, and Digitized: The Importance of Shared Space" in a cursory search of back issues of the online journal Kairos, and the promise of the title coupled with the ingenuity of the web-text format piqued my curiosity. This study looked at six courses using online writing instruction; half were f2f in a wired lab, and the other half were hybrid courses. Data was collected through teacher observation and through two student surveys administered online.
The authors are quick to situate themselves in the discourse of collaborative pedagogy. Citing standards like Kenneth Bruffee, Kathleen Blake Yancey, and Lester Faigley*, they quickly establish the terms for their model of collaboration (and remind the reader of the distinction between collaboration and cooperation). The authors also engage more current scholarship about online writing instruction (Hewett and Ehmann, 2005; Paloff and Pratt, 2001 and 2005*). The authors, then, reflect upon their findings in the context of both collaborative pedagogy in general and also more recent pedagogy about writing in digital spaces.
Two of their conclusions struck me as quite salient. First, they note their own surprise at the students' opinions of and reactions to the notion of collaboration:
Oddly (for us at least), we found that our students clearly desired working in groups and collaborative environments, and generally preferred doing so in many cases. Why then didn’t more of the instructors participating in the study incorporate more collaborative learning activities within their courses?Brunk-Chavez and Miller quickly attempt to answer their own question here with the hypothesis that the responsibility may lie with the instructors, and this seems of particular interest when we consider the power differential and our own assumptions about students' preferences. For a long time, we as instructors have projected on to our student the opinion that group work is somehow undesirable. My hunch has always been that even though students sometimes bemoan "group work," many of them realize that they reap the benefits of the social interaction and the construction of knowledge that collaboration allows.
Second, Brunk-Chavez and Miller make the assertion early on that "a digitized classroom creates and maintains shared spaces in ways that a f2f classroom cannot." Although verifying just how (and how much) this statement holds true would certainly be a herculean task, the rewards of such labor would be immeasurable. Thus, this contention merits further attention and discussion, and I hope that future researchers will continue to explore the benefits, limitations, and implications of space in OWI.
Unfortunately, the study itself proved fairly inadequate, and I must admit to being somewhat disappointed in the methodology and the conclusions the study offers. For reasons not fully explained by the authors, only 57 of the study's 150 participants answered the first survey, but then 117 of the participants responded to the second survey. As the authors point out, this prevents them from being able to draw conclusions about change over time or to make connections even about general student perception (after all, it is impossible to determine the overlap between the first group of 57 and the second group of 117).
This leads me to what is perhaps my most pressing question: is there reliable empirical evidence about collaboration in teaching writing at a distance? Many articles have bemoaned the lack of actual empirical studies as the basis for sound pedagogy, and even Brunk-Chavez and Miller themselves make mention of Hewett and Ehmann's admonition of "the relatively low value given to proving claims made for social constructivism" in OWI (2005). I hope that a deeper survey of the literature will lead me to the kinds of research that raise the bar for what empirical data for composition studies should look like.
*I have noted the following works that were cited in the Brunk-Chavez and Miller web-text; their complete Works Cited list is available through their web-text:
Bruffee, K. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. (2nd ed.) Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
Faigley, L. (1992). Fragments of rationality: Postmodernity and the subject of composition. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.
Hewett, B., & Ehmann, C. (2005). Preparing educators for online writing instruction: Principles and process. Urbana: NCTE.
Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Yancey, K. B. & Spooner, M. (1998). A single good mind: collaboration, cooperation, and the writing self. College Composition and Communication, 49(1), 45-62.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
An introduction
Hi everybody,
I obviously haven't posted any of my reviews yet, but I thought perhaps an introductory post would be a good placeholder.
I've been teaching writing since 2006 at lots of different types of colleges and universities (I even tutored online for a while). This is my first class toward my PhD (I'm also taking the WPA class later this summer). I was originally admitted for fall, and I will be full-time. Instead of teaching for my assistantship, I will be the Assistant Director of Writing Programs alongside Matt Oliver, so I'm sure I will be working closely with any of you who are teaching here in the fall.
I've lived here in Norfolk for about a year now with my husband Wayne and our two boys, Josh (almost 8) and Ben (3 and a half). Wayne is a "cyber" officer in the Air Force (which I think makes him sound a little like Robocop), and we have moved about every three years since we got married eleven years ago. We are moving over to a house on Brunswick Avenue as we speak, which is literally around the corner from the ODU campus.
I'm already really enjoying being back in class as a student, and I hope I will be able to get to know many of you as the class progresses. I've posted some of my favorite related links here on my blog too just to share, and I hope that they will be of some use. I'm looking forward to working with all of you.
Cheers,
Danielle
I obviously haven't posted any of my reviews yet, but I thought perhaps an introductory post would be a good placeholder.
I've been teaching writing since 2006 at lots of different types of colleges and universities (I even tutored online for a while). This is my first class toward my PhD (I'm also taking the WPA class later this summer). I was originally admitted for fall, and I will be full-time. Instead of teaching for my assistantship, I will be the Assistant Director of Writing Programs alongside Matt Oliver, so I'm sure I will be working closely with any of you who are teaching here in the fall.
I've lived here in Norfolk for about a year now with my husband Wayne and our two boys, Josh (almost 8) and Ben (3 and a half). Wayne is a "cyber" officer in the Air Force (which I think makes him sound a little like Robocop), and we have moved about every three years since we got married eleven years ago. We are moving over to a house on Brunswick Avenue as we speak, which is literally around the corner from the ODU campus.
I'm already really enjoying being back in class as a student, and I hope I will be able to get to know many of you as the class progresses. I've posted some of my favorite related links here on my blog too just to share, and I hope that they will be of some use. I'm looking forward to working with all of you.
Cheers,
Danielle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)