Concerns
Access Assumptions:
- Material Access (mobile technology vs. computer..there are emoji's for both but mobile is far more accessible for students. Does access to one affect how they use emoji's with the other?)
- Knowledge (What is their prior use of emoji's?)
- Hardware (Do they know HOW to access such platforms? Do they know the technology?)
- Social implications (what SMS platforms are used over others in different cultural context?)
- Student population (what are our demographics in EN 101? Age? Race? Gender?)
- Race (are there different SMS spaces used over others based on race?)
- Economic (can we assume students can even financially access these technologies?)
- Education (how has their educational background shaped their proficiency with technology?)
- Etiquette (do they demonstrate a particular decorum in who they're talking to? How does this manifest among different cultures? How do students come to develop cultural literacies in emoji use?)
Biases:
- I'm not a "digital native" or "digital immigrant"...how does my attitude towards technology (and specifically emoji use) differ from my students? How does it shape my pedagogy?
- A way to combat this is working alongside my students, making collaboration among student and teacher a learning experience on both end (keeping the human central and collaboration make this aspect inherently DH)
- Knowing the emoji's. Does my knowledge and use of emoji's play into my pedagogical application of the visual rhetoric? Does this hegemony silence my CLASP students? What about the other students?
- Sharing my etiquette of emoji use can help to shape students literacies of emoji practice within the composition classroom (while also learning the literacies differences that extend OUTSIDE of the classroom)
- How might my comp/rhet understandings of literacy frame my application of the data? Can literacies be interdisciplinary?
- Not only are the literacies interdisciplinary as they extend to SMS spaces, but also the practice of how we ask students to use these technologies is interdisciplinary and can help to facilitate an embodied approach to communicating in different settings to help to humanize virtual composing.
- Is technology literacy a comp/rhet/dh literacy only? How does that shape my research?
- No, technology literacy extends in all realms of education (as we've seen in the TED talks in the beginning of my proposal. Literacy with technology in keeping the human central and technology as the tool is a DH literacy, one in which we can extend for rhet/comp implications in the classroom but the interdisciplinary nature of DH keeps the project free of limiting itself to specifically rhet/comp only.