Amy Thinking / Reading Notes Week 8 (10/15)
First, I want to comment a bit on some resources I've been locating while trying to choose programs for my Reading Challenges. I ran across a few threads on the website Edutopia, and one in particular focused on Brain-Based Learning. Since this is quickly becoming an interest of mine, thanks to our readings this term, I naturally had to explore this page. While I realize this website has a bias (don't they all?), and it's clearly geared more toward the K-12 range, I'm intrigued by this site as a resource. For example, there is a blog post entitled, "Cognitively Priming Students for Learning" by Judy Willis. Willis is a neurologist now working in education. The blog offers very practical teaching strategies based on cognitive theory (a timely discovery for me as I just finished reading a chapter in New Learning on this very subject). I then discovered a page on this site that offers a list of resources -- again, geared toward K-12, but may provide me with a launch point for scholarship related to higher ed situations.
Next, I stumbled across the app "TinyTap," which is explained in the video located above (although I'm not sure why it duplicated like this). I'm really tempted to try this in my Comp II / iPad mediated research class, but cannot figure out how I'd make it relevant to what we're doing at this point. I'm sure that won't stop me, but pedagogically I have to justify it! I'm also tempted to figure out how to make it a part of what I'm doing in THIS class, and given my recent thinking about the major assignment, I may have to give this more serious thought. In the meantime, the fact that the premise of this app is to allow the student to "become a maker" aligns with so much of what we've been reading this term about creating a classroom space (and assignments) that situates students as "co-creators" of that learning (Kalantzis and Cope) with enhanced agency, using multimodal options that allow collaborative learning, and heightening student awareness of the rhetorical nature of technology and its materiality (Jenkins, Haas, Selfe & Selfe) through "doing" rather than "telling."
So, on to the reading notes for this week...
Ball, Cheryl. “Designerly Readerly: Re-assessing Multimodal and New Media Rubrics for Use in Writing Studies.” Convergence 12.4 (2006): 393-412.
I really enjoyed the article by Cheryl Ball, but was surprised when she expressed a note of caution about the methods of assessment being promoted for integrating multimodal and design theory into the classroom.
I say this because I had not considered design theory as an approach that might overplay the materiality aspect of digital composing in terms of creating an assessment rubric. Such a power dynamic or "privileged" centered theory in our field seems to almost be a throwback to earlier times (perhaps even manifesting a bit of the didactic?).
Ball argues that the rubrics created for new media by new media specialists are more about the designer than the reader.
These Designerly rubrics do “not offer a way to teach students how to sufficiently analyze new media texts” (394) from a reader's perspective. Her suggestion is that we must figure out how to address the readerly needs when designing tools of assessment (and perhaps even assignments?). Her main point seems to be that applying designerly assessment only demonstrates analysis from the product angle, not the producer’s angle. This seems to be what she’s saying on p. 394, as she defines the theory of design as a tool of interpretation (meaning making?) that relies heavily on materiality (see Devoss et al. and channeling the concerns of Selfe/Selfe on taking a balanced approach to technology and writing). As I read, my marginal notes began to point to other texts we've read thus far. For example, I wondered how Haas might chime in on this argument? Perhaps by observing that it’s the materiality not just of writing but of reading that new media makes evident / important? Ball doesn't seem to be discounting design as a productive theory to apply to teaching via new media, but she is saying it isn’t enough. Design focuses on materials – even the technology – perhaps diminishing the human element, what the reader needs / sees. Another marginal question after reading her own application of how she might assess new media in terms of these readerly approaches: how would we design a rubric for performance – as this is what her example resembles?
Her method / example of applying a readerly rubric reminds me a lot of the Literary Theory that prioritizes the reader’s
discernment of author motivations -- “Reader Response” from the 1960s. For example, she models the concept of making meaning by applying her own readerly strong suits (that is, what she knows about poetry and symbolism) to the media. Perhaps this is one of the reasons I felt as though her article was creating connections to our field's "distant past" in unexpected ways.
Probably one of the quotations that stood out the most to me was on page 394: The “rubrics pulled from Kress and van Leeuwen’s and Manovich’s theories have not yet addressed rhetorical situations of design” or helping “writing teachers understand how multiple modes make meaning in a text” – with the emphasis on the HOW. This seems more than just a turn of phrase -- it isn't enough to point to the tools, as in design components. What Ball seems to be suggesting is that we're heading in the direction of "building the better rubric," but in order to do so we need to look at this from an interpretative perspective that doesn't prioritize the materiality of the practice.
Bishop-Clark, Cathy and Beth Dietz-Uhler. Engaging in the SoTL. Chapters 7-9. These final chapters were probably the most intimidating of the entire book. As much as I love match and science, the thought of analyzing writing program outcomes in terms of numeric data does bring me up short. However, this book is very reader-friendly, and acknowledges up front how data gathering can take many forms. That said, there were any number of "nuggets" of wisdom in these chapters, such as pointing out that every stage of design (collection methods, analysis methods, and sharing methods) need to be repeatedly framed in terms of our Research Question (not unlike what we teach our freshmen). I greatly appreciated the range of approaches and methods offered by the others, which helped me see that a research design can be just as effective if modest in scope as those that cover far more territory and reach for more lofty goals. The level of detail and if-then options were encouraging, and have helped me see that "going small" is the direction I'll be taking. As in my earlier posts, the worksheets offer organizational promise, and will no doubt be copied several times for future use!
Next, I stumbled across the app "TinyTap," which is explained in the video located above (although I'm not sure why it duplicated like this). I'm really tempted to try this in my Comp II / iPad mediated research class, but cannot figure out how I'd make it relevant to what we're doing at this point. I'm sure that won't stop me, but pedagogically I have to justify it! I'm also tempted to figure out how to make it a part of what I'm doing in THIS class, and given my recent thinking about the major assignment, I may have to give this more serious thought. In the meantime, the fact that the premise of this app is to allow the student to "become a maker" aligns with so much of what we've been reading this term about creating a classroom space (and assignments) that situates students as "co-creators" of that learning (Kalantzis and Cope) with enhanced agency, using multimodal options that allow collaborative learning, and heightening student awareness of the rhetorical nature of technology and its materiality (Jenkins, Haas, Selfe & Selfe) through "doing" rather than "telling."
So, on to the reading notes for this week...
3D Game Lab: I’m always at a bit of a loss as to how to efficiently and effectively locate OER images, so this week's quest was informative. As the quest points out, using images for teaching or learning vs. other random purposes may pose a problem when it comes to justifying “fair use,” and I’ve certainly encountered the embed problem with non-local images or creations. Several helpful tips that were new to me this week: using annotations in Flickr was something I had not considered as a way to get students to see what I see in an image. I’ve never used the site as a registered user, so this is something I’ll need to look into.
Other helpful tips: using programs like TinEye or Google Image search, and the repositories of icons and images are bookmarks in the making!
Ball, Cheryl. “Designerly Readerly: Re-assessing Multimodal and New Media Rubrics for Use in Writing Studies.” Convergence 12.4 (2006): 393-412.
I really enjoyed the article by Cheryl Ball, but was surprised when she expressed a note of caution about the methods of assessment being promoted for integrating multimodal and design theory into the classroom.
I say this because I had not considered design theory as an approach that might overplay the materiality aspect of digital composing in terms of creating an assessment rubric. Such a power dynamic or "privileged" centered theory in our field seems to almost be a throwback to earlier times (perhaps even manifesting a bit of the didactic?).
Ball argues that the rubrics created for new media by new media specialists are more about the designer than the reader.
These Designerly rubrics do “not offer a way to teach students how to sufficiently analyze new media texts” (394) from a reader's perspective. Her suggestion is that we must figure out how to address the readerly needs when designing tools of assessment (and perhaps even assignments?). Her main point seems to be that applying designerly assessment only demonstrates analysis from the product angle, not the producer’s angle. This seems to be what she’s saying on p. 394, as she defines the theory of design as a tool of interpretation (meaning making?) that relies heavily on materiality (see Devoss et al. and channeling the concerns of Selfe/Selfe on taking a balanced approach to technology and writing). As I read, my marginal notes began to point to other texts we've read thus far. For example, I wondered how Haas might chime in on this argument? Perhaps by observing that it’s the materiality not just of writing but of reading that new media makes evident / important? Ball doesn't seem to be discounting design as a productive theory to apply to teaching via new media, but she is saying it isn’t enough. Design focuses on materials – even the technology – perhaps diminishing the human element, what the reader needs / sees. Another marginal question after reading her own application of how she might assess new media in terms of these readerly approaches: how would we design a rubric for performance – as this is what her example resembles?
Her method / example of applying a readerly rubric reminds me a lot of the Literary Theory that prioritizes the reader’s
discernment of author motivations -- “Reader Response” from the 1960s. For example, she models the concept of making meaning by applying her own readerly strong suits (that is, what she knows about poetry and symbolism) to the media. Perhaps this is one of the reasons I felt as though her article was creating connections to our field's "distant past" in unexpected ways.
Probably one of the quotations that stood out the most to me was on page 394: The “rubrics pulled from Kress and van Leeuwen’s and Manovich’s theories have not yet addressed rhetorical situations of design” or helping “writing teachers understand how multiple modes make meaning in a text” – with the emphasis on the HOW. This seems more than just a turn of phrase -- it isn't enough to point to the tools, as in design components. What Ball seems to be suggesting is that we're heading in the direction of "building the better rubric," but in order to do so we need to look at this from an interpretative perspective that doesn't prioritize the materiality of the practice.
Bishop-Clark, Cathy and Beth Dietz-Uhler. Engaging in the SoTL. Chapters 7-9. These final chapters were probably the most intimidating of the entire book. As much as I love match and science, the thought of analyzing writing program outcomes in terms of numeric data does bring me up short. However, this book is very reader-friendly, and acknowledges up front how data gathering can take many forms. That said, there were any number of "nuggets" of wisdom in these chapters, such as pointing out that every stage of design (collection methods, analysis methods, and sharing methods) need to be repeatedly framed in terms of our Research Question (not unlike what we teach our freshmen). I greatly appreciated the range of approaches and methods offered by the others, which helped me see that a research design can be just as effective if modest in scope as those that cover far more territory and reach for more lofty goals. The level of detail and if-then options were encouraging, and have helped me see that "going small" is the direction I'll be taking. As in my earlier posts, the worksheets offer organizational promise, and will no doubt be copied several times for future use!
| Previous page on path | Amy Locklear's Mini-Bio, page 13 of 20 | Next page on path |
Discussion of "Amy Thinking / Reading Notes Week 8 (10/15)"
Add your voice to this discussion.
Checking your signed in status ...