“Drake’s the type of dude”: Hip hop authenticity, black masculinity, and the feminization of Drake

Using the gender-sexual dimension of the McLeod's six semantic dimensions of authenticity, this presentation will show how Drake’s presence within hip hop further complicates the idea of hip hop authenticity, subverts the hypermasculinity associated with hip hop and black men, in general. However, the discourse surrounding Drake (the rejection and vilification of his persona by popular culture both white and black), counters this subversion of hypermasculinity, feminizing Drake and presenting him as a tragic mulatto.

Drake's Emotional Lyrics Timeline

I only chose songs that I could remember off the top of my head as being "overly" emotional. I started with his first major release So Far Gone and moved to his latest release Nothing Was The Same.  
 

Fear (2009): Lyric:  "You know I spend money because spending time is hopeless/ And know I pop bottles cause I bottle my emotions/ At least I put it all in the open."

Best I Ever Had (2009): Lyric: "You could have my heart or we could share it like the last slice."

Houstalantavegas (2009): Lyric: "Until you find yourself, it's impossible to lose you/Uh... because I never had you.../Although I would be glad to.../I probably go and tattoo... your name on my heart"

Find Your Love (2010): Lyric: “I better find your loving, I better find your heart/I bet if I give all my love, then nothing's going to tear us apart.”

Marvin’s Room (2011): Lyric: [Drake and Woman on phone]
“Well I’m sorry” – [Drake]
“Are you drunk right now?” – [Woman]

I’m just sayin’ you could do better
Tell me have you heard that lately
I’m just sayin’ you could do better
And I’ll start hatin’ only if you make me

Take Care (2011): Lyric: "When you’re ready, just say you’re ready/ When all the baggage just ain’t as heavy/ And the party's over, just don’t forget me/ We’ll change the pace and we'll just go slow/ You won’t ever have to worry,/ You won’t ever have to hide/ You've seen all my mistakes/
So look me in my eyes"

Lord Knows (2011): Lyric: “I'm going through her phone if she goes to the bathroom and her purse right there. I don't trust these hoes, at all.”

Hold On, We’re Going Home (2013): Lyric: “I got my eyes on you / you’re everything that I see / I want your hot love and emotion endlessly / I can’t get over you / you left your mark on me / I want your hot love and emotion endlessly.”

Drake Memes

"Drake is the type of dude...":
■ to eat two gummy bears at the same time so they don’t have to die alone.
■ who cries on Maury because he is not the father.
■ to order a an escort for spooning
■ to spray cologne in the air then shimmy into the mist
■ to steal your girl, deeply regret it, then try to help her get back with you
■ to cry when chopping carrots, so the onions won’t feel like they’re ugly or
something
■ to get married and change his last name
■ to get nudes from a girl, photoshop closes on her body, and send it back
■ to watch his girl purse while she dance with another guy
■ to let the bedbugs bite, so they don’t get hungry
■ to jump while puttin his jeans on


Other memes:

 

Constructing Authority: Performativity, Podcasts, and Composition

Jones, Leigh A. "Podcasting and Performativity: Multimodal Invention in an Advanced Writing Class." Composition Studies 38.2 (2010): 75-91. Web. 10 Oct. 2013.

In the article noted above, Leigh Jones argues for compositionist to use a combination of performance studies and multimodal discourse theories in conjunction with rhetorical strategies (invention, specifically) to improve the invention process and to help students establish an authoritative voice in their writing.

Jones posits that fear of risk-taking hinders the writing process for students, specifically during invention. According to Jones, risk-taking is important because "risks are required for academic productivity and creativity. Writing is a transformative process in that it requires us to imagine our audiences and ourselves anew [...]" (76). To encourage students in these areas, Jones recommends using podcasts to “mak[e] their risky invention process more productive and their writing process more transformative (79).

The podcast assignment, presented at the beginning the research paper, required students, in teams of two, to create a five-minute podcast. The podcast was to inform the class about a controversial issue in the news that the student planned to write about over the semester. Working with their partners, students had freedom as to whose topic was used or not used and the content of the script. Completed after an annotated bibliography, the podcasts provided an audience for the annotated bibliography and helped students to productively use their preliminary research to create content for their podcasts. The assignment required students to pretend to be experts/authorities on their subject. Because students knew the podcast would be played for the class, many recorded and re-recorded in hopes to make their podcast more effective. This, according to Jones, shows audience awareness during the invention process, which impacted their arrangement, summaries, and explanations in the podcasts.

According to Jones, performance is inherent in composition. The writing classroom, itself, is a “performative space that is most often treated as natural in the moment” (79). The performance of teacher as authority and students as learners negatively impacts the writing process, as students are asked to go from being subordinates in the class to authorities within their writing. Podcasting as “an epistemological tool in the invention process” allows students to pretend to have authority, changing the dynamic of the classroom and shifting their perspective on their writing and their authority over their subject (78).

I recommend Jones’ article to scholars in rhetoric and composition because his research presents a path to joining classical rhetoric (invention) with contemporary discourse/writing (podcast). As all our lives are more digitally mediated, multimodal discourse becomes more important.  Integrating multimodal writing will help prepare students for writing in and for these environments. Jones’ article does not provide definitive answers to questions of using technology in the classroom or effectively teaching the writing process; however, it does add to the conversation on performance studies and the importance of multimodal composition. I think podcasting maybe the first of many “performative epistemology” tools that can help students with the writing process and increase rhetorical awareness.

(Re)Framing the Conversation about MOOCS: Rhetorical and Pedagogical approaches in Duke's FYC MOOC

Abstract:

MOOCs have become a contested area within higher education due to their perceived impact on its stakeholders. Currently, MOOCs are being presented as either the demise or resurrection of higher education. This latest technological trend has stirred debate about the cost of education, significance of learning, and the role of teachers. In addition, concerns about the impact of technology and business on education have arisen. An often overlooked area in regards to MOOCs are humanities courses, which are not as economical and transferable as other disciplines. As more and more disciplines are presented via MOOCs, the question arises: Will MOOCs work for Writing? Currently, there have been 3 Composition MOOCs taught at Duke University, Georgia Institute of Technology, and Ohio State University, respectively. This project will examine Duke University's composition MOOC, English Composition I: Achieving Expertise, using the syllabus, instructor reflection, and textbook to reconstruct the course, this paper explores the following questions: Will MOOCs work for writing instruction? What rhetorical and pedagogical strategies are used in a composition MOOC? Do these strategies "disrupt" or advance current rhetorical and pedagogical approaches in composition instruction both face-to-face and online? Ultimately, I argue that the rhetorical and pedagogical approaches used in MOOCs are not a step forward for rhetoric and composition; however, MOOCs provided an opportunity for innovation in writing in all environments.

Anderson, Terry and Jon Dron. "Three Generations of Distance Education Pedagogy." International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 12.3 (2011): 80-97. Web.Tate, Gary, Amy

Bartholomae, David. "Inventing the University." Journal of Basic Writing 5.1 (1986): 4-23. Web

Berlin, James A. "Richard Whatley and Current-Traditional Rhetoric." College English 42.1 (1980): 10-17. Web

Comer, Denise. English Composition I: Achieving expertise. Duke University and Coursera. n.d. Web. 12 Oct 2013.

--- "MOOCs Offer Students Opportunity to Grow as Writers." http://www.iiis.org/CDs2013/CD2013SCI/IMSCI_2013/PapersPdf/EA653TO.pdf

Daniel, Sir John. "Making Sense of MOOCs: Musings in a Maze of Myth, Paradox and Possibility." Journal of Interactive Media in Education 18 (2012): n.p. Web.


Fulkerson, Richard. "Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century." College Composition and Communication 56.4 (2005): 654-687. Web.


Krause, Steven. D. "MOOC Response about 'Listening to World Music' " College Composition and Communication 64.4 (2013): 689-604 Print



Liyanagunawardena, Tharindu Rekha, Andrew Alexander Adams, and Shirley Ann Williams. "MOOCs: A Systemic Study of the Published Literature 2008-2012." The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 14.3 (2013): 202-226. Web

Rice, Jeff. "What I Learned in MOOC." College Composition and Communication 64.4 (2013): 695- 703

Rupiper, and Kurt Schick, Eds. A Guide to Composition Pedagogies. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Print.


"Pedagogy." Coursera. n.d. Web 12 Oct 2013

"Postsecondary Success." Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. n.d Web. 12 Oct 2013.

Embracing FYC as a General Education Course

Miles, Libby et al. “Thinking Vertically.” College Composition and Communication 59.3 (2008): 503-511. Web. 1 Oct 2013

            In “Thinking Vertically,” Libby Miles et al. argue that first-year students should be taught “situated procedural knowledge”(576). Miles et al support a vertical curricula, which includes the following principles: recursion over time, core courses common to all majors, and situated production in a variety of contexts over time. This curriculum is spread out over several courses, which could be several semesters or years for students. For example, basic writing concepts would be presented in 100 level courses, and 200 level courses, which would have students from a variety of disciplines, would be argumentative writing and digital writing. Compositionist would design courses in sequences that connect to and build on one another. The aim of this, according to the authors, is to present transferable knowledge. This will help students make connections across/between disciplines. Vertical curriculum encourages the idea of FYC as a general education course, freeing FYC to be designed based on the different needs of the students and to design a menu of advanced writing courses, providing different situations for student writers. This curriculum leaves space for multiple research models and course designs in order to champion the hybrid, multimodal, and interdisciplinary nature of writing studies. They argue against teaching students to be scholars, as all students do not want to become academics. The aim of the vertical curriculum is for students to become independent and critical thinkers intellectuals.

            Although, this article is over 5 years old, it is important for rhetoric and composition instructors because there is still debate about the goal of FYC and its role in the University. This article was originally written in response to Douglas Downs and Elizabeth Wardle’s article about FYC being transformed into a writing studies or writing about writing course. Since then writing about writing has taken off (even being presented as WAW). However, the debate about what it means to teach writing and what pedagogical approaches should be used in FYC continue. In my research, this was the only articles that embraced FYC as a general education course. This is interesting and valuable information given that most in the rhetoric and composition field resist this label. What is gained in embracing FYC as a general education course? Would moving toward a generic approach to writing instruction help students to write in a variety of disciplines? This article attempts to define the role of FYC. Should the course prepare students to write within the discipline? Should the course prepare students to write in the university (across multiple disciplines) It is important to define the role of this course within the university, as FYC impacts perceptions of English Studies as a discipline, incoming students, and our individual research and classroom practices.

You Can't Take It With You: Transfer in FYC

Fishman, Jenn and Mary Jo Reiff. "Program Profile: Taking the High Road: Teaching For Transfer In An FYC Program." Composition Forum 18 (2009): 1-14.  Humanities International Complete. Web 29 Sept. 2013. 

My focus for this course, thus far, has been centered on exploring the role of FYC in the University. This post continues that exploration by examining what students should take away from FYC. In their article, "Program Profile: Taking the High Road: Teaching For Transfer In An FYC Program," Fishman and Reiff present that FYC should provide students with knowledge/skills that can be used (transferred) in courses beyond FYC. The authors site the knowledge transfer work done by D.N. Perkins and Gavriel Salomon as a core part of their curriculum revision. Perkins and Salomon, educational theorist, present two types of transfer (low road and high road). Low-road transfer refers to routine cognitive work and high-road transfer deals with analytic thinking. They also present two related pedagogies (hugging and bridging). Hugging teaches toward automatic response, whereas bridging teaches "through activities that promote problem solving and generalizing across disparate examples." Writing instructors, particularly FYC instructors, desire high road transfer, as it enables students to apply skills learned in FYC in other courses. 

The question that Fishman and Reiff pose is "how do we design a writing curriculum that creates the conditions for high road transfer?" The answer to this question is rhetoric, which they argue is the bridge between the program’s two goals of "teaching students core writing strategies and encouraging them to communicate confidently in multiple writing situations." The authors show how UT-Knoxville, a traditional English department where literature specialists hold the most of the tenure-track positions, transformed their program to one that is "both responsible and responsive to the writing needs of students beyond the first year." The new curriculum focused on the writing needs of the students. Through conversations with instructors about course goals and challenges, the new courses had common assignments and focused on broad knowledge areas of rhetorical learning, genre knowledge, and discourse community knowledge. In addition the curriculum also emphasized teaching transferable tools, such as rhetorical awareness, reading rhetorically, reading as writers, and developing strategies for writing to multiple audiences for multiple purposes, using multiple mediums and modes of expressions.

English 101 was presented as "(Re)Emphasizing Rhetoric." The course focuses on staring a practical foundation for English 102, focusing on general rhetorical strategies through sequences assignments (reading rhetorically, rhetorical analysis, contextual analysis, argument paper, and source-based argument. The English 102 course has a required structure that moves from field research, to historical research, and then academic research. Each course had a theme, which was chosen by the individual instructor. The article concludes, first, by presenting that the analysis of the new curriculum is underway, and second, by arguing that teaching for transfer is not the end of FYC but an opportunity for instructors to develop assignments/activities that meet students needs without falling into the generic assignments or forgoing the use of rhetorical concepts.

Fishman and Reiff present an interesting glimpse into what it is like to revise a FYC curriculum. I think this article is necessary because it gives rhetoric and composition instructors a chance to see how other Universities are tackling issues within rhetoric and composition. FYC is a contested space and often falls into a pattern of using victim rhetoric (underpaid labor, general education course, the homeroom of the university). This article does not focus on the administrative issues that surround FYC, but on the pedagogical issues connected to FYC. This approach, I feel, shows how all stakeholders in rhetoric and composition can benefit. The students are able to get the tools/skills they need to move on to other courses/disciplines. The instructors are able to teach courses in which they can use the knowledge they have and apply their personal interests. The administration’s general education requirements are met. It is important for instructors to consider transfer of knowledge when designing and implementing FYC courses.  Whether the purpose or goal of FYC is to prepare students to write in all disciplines or to write in academic discourse, it is important that they are able to take what they have learned with them.

Deliberative Discourse and First-Year Composition (FYC)

Braun, M.J. "The Prospects for Rhetoric in a First-Year Composition Program: Deliberative      Discourse as a Vehicle for Change?" Writing Program Administration 31.3 (2008): 89-109. EBSCOhost. Web. 24 September 2013.

M.J. Braun's article, "The Prospects for Rhetoric in a First-Year Composition Program: Deliberative Discourse as a Vehicle for Change?", presents a possible answer to the question Rhetoric or Composition? First-Year composition is a contested space due to labor issues and debates about what should and should not be a part of first-year composition. This article continues the debate about the role of FYC, its position in the university, and pedagogical approaches. This is a necessary conversation because it addresses the impact of the administration on what takes place in FYC. It also brings to light (possible) distinctions between rhetoric and composition.

Braun's article posits that FYC should break with traditional composition. Using narrative, the history of rhetoric and composition, and deliberative rhetoric, based on "agnostic and radically democratic strategies" developed by Chantal Moufee, he argues that composition programs should focus on rhetoric instead of the current-traditionalist approach to composition. The argument focuses on using deliberative discourse to challenge the current curriculum and to establish continued research in rhetoric and rhetorical pedagogy. Braun supports the argument for a return to rhetoric by identifying how, students, in significant social and political moments, were not inept at engaging in/with the issues (i.e. (9/11). Braun presents that a return to rhetoric as "theoretical discourse" would allow students to  "knowledgeably and ethically participate in opinion-making and knowledge-making discourses by developing their understanding of the multiplicity of ways persuasion takes place" (92). He presents that traditional composition's focus on aesthetics (grammar/usage) does not take into account "the living genres that circulate in everyday and academic life"(93). He positions rhetoric and composition in opposition to one another.  The latter is presented as taking place in a vacuum, wherein writing takes place individually with correct grammar and usage without being engaged with the texts/audiences that already exist in the world.

Braun engaged in deliberative discussions with instructors, adjuncts, and graduate students about disciplinary identity and pedagogy.  He presents that these discussions were agnostic and radically democratic in that the discussions did not seek consensus or compromise; the goal was to have an informed solution. Through the narrative, he shares the challenges faced from other faculty and the administration. The administration was resistant to transforming the writing program in part to what Braun identifies as "market forces." On the other hand, the writing faculty and graduate students, openly engaged in discussions about changing the goals of instruction and replacing concepts of composition with rhetorical theory. Ultimately, Braun's argument rests on his belief that current composition is "arhetorical" and does not require students to engage with existing texts and use rhetorical strategies that take into account various audiences and purposes; this approach, he argues, will develop students' abilities to examine and engage complex social and political situations.

Everything is Rhetoric...but Composition

Crowley, Sharon. "Composition Is Not Rhetoric." Enculturation 5.1 (2003). Web. 9 Sept. 2013.

            The title of Sharon Crowley’s article “Composition is not Rhetoric” presents a strong statement about the state of rhetoric and composition as disciplines. She begins with the eye-opening statement: "Composition, as it has been practiced in the required first-year course for more than 100 years, has nothing whatever to do with rhetoric." This clearly presents that rhetoric and composition are different and separate disciplines and activities. Crowley presents that invention along with civic and social discourse are essential to rhetoric. Her primary concern is that over the years rhetoric has been removed from composition and the focus shifted to choosing a subject (invention) and the five-paragraph essay (arrangement).  Because of the shift in composition, the integration of social and political discourse is also complicated. She acknowledges that composition theorist and teachers attempt to integrate civic activities and service-learning into their courses. However, Crowley argues, that their motivations lie with "Marx and neo-marxist theorists" and "the brand of cultural studies associated with the work of Raymond Williams and Stuart Hall. The move is not motivated by the study of rhetoric.  Crowley aligns herself with Charles Sears Baldwin’s argument rhetoric and rhetorical pedagogy has turned into sophistry. We, modern users of rhetoric and composition, have become focused on effectiveness of the speaker instead of the message. Basically, rhetoric cannot work, as it should, without invention and the "canon that ties it to social and public use."  Ultimately, Crowley distinguishes rhetoric from all other disciplines because of its focus on invention.

            I think Crowley's article is necessary for scholars in rhetoric and composition because it begins the conversation in regards to defining or redefining composition. She makes a clear distinction between composition of the past and "modern" composition. This is something that I never considered. The idea of a composition of the past that works well with rhetoric and the composition of the present, which pushes rhetoric to the fringes, is intriguing and worrisome. I also think it is important to question the intentions behind reintegrating rhetoric into the composition classroom. What are the motivations behind this decision? Is the desire to return rhetoric or to integrate cultural studies? This essay would be a good starting point for anyone making pedagogical decisions in regards to a first-year composition course. It would also be useful for scholars and teachers who are trying to situate themselves in rhetoric and composition. For me, it brought about questions in regards to how I define rhetoric, whether invention is essential to rhetoric, and if my use of social and civic discourse is tied to cultural theorists.

Guess Who's Bizzack?

I am not sure if that is an appropriate title for an academic blog, but I guess that is part of why I am here. I want to find all those things that are not appropriate for the academic and make them appropriate.

Why? Because I can.

I want to roll up to the Ivory Tower with my ceiling missing, blasting 2-Chainz, and discussing how he subverts mainstream culture by simply managing to make it to the mainstream. That's another post.

This blog is my journey into bring my two worlds together: hip hop and rhet/comp. Many say they do not belong together and some will label it cultural studies. Call it what you will. As they say in hip hop: "We outchea" (We out here).  Meaning, I am here to stay and to represent. No matter the label, I'm here to turn the academy into a cypher.

This point forward begins my return to the academy as a student and not a teacher. From here on all posts are focused on Composition as Applied Rhetoric. I am currently torn on how I feel about composition and rhetoric. One thing I sure of is that they belong together. What I want to figure out is what the represent individually, why they belong together, and how can both be utilized effectively.

I believe that rhetoric embodies the tools, techniques, skills, etc that we use to compose. The situation of communication, in itself, is rhetorical. I am simplifying a bit, but you get the gist. Well, thanks to all who wander here and to those required for this class.

Welcome to Academic Cypher!

Ning in the Online FY Writing Course

Ning and the First-Year Composition Course on Prezi

Review Paradigm Online Writing Assistant

Paradigm Online Writing Assistant on Prezi

Pedagogical Tool Review: Paradigm Online Writing Assistant

Distance Education and Writing

In composition there are hundreds if not thousands of textbooks, handbooks, guides, software programs, and services aimed at helping students to understand the writing process and how to create a finished product. Now that there is distance education, many of these products have been transferred into an online version, so they can be more accessible to the online learning community. The community that they served in print form, however, can sometimes be very different from the community served online. The demographics of the online learning environment has changed and does not, necessarily, reflect the traditional on-campus classroom. There is often greater diversity in race, age, gender, and ability online. Online classes bring together students from a wide range of abilities. Some students are not at the level to understand the course materials, have little experience with writing, do not understand how to navigate online, or are financial unable to purchase course materials. Access is always an issue in education. When designing a course, the instructor wants students to be able to utilize the course material and any resources available. There are always instances where students may not be able to understand or afford the course material and resources. In a distance education course, the instructor is less capable of connecting with the student to aid in them in acquiring necessary materials. In the instance where materials are available online, they should be utilized. Writing can be a difficult subject to teach at a distance, getting students to understand the recursive nature of the writing process, crafting a finished product, and constructing knowledge is complicated even in face-to-face classes. A useful tool for this type of approach is an online writing guide. The Paradigm Online Writing Assistant provides writing guidance and resources.
In order to effectively teach such a wide range of students about process driven writing without depending on hegemonic tools that may overshadow some learners, instructors have to find resources that are effective, accessible, and easy to understand.

What is POWA?

The Paradigm Online Writing Assistant (POWA) is an online writing guide that is located both on the web and in hard copy. The book is available for purchase online, but the website is free and interactive; it serves as both a writing guide and a handbook. POWA was created and written by Chuck Guilford. Chuck Guilford is an emeritus associate professor of English at Boise State University. He has taught composition, creative writing, and literature classes on the undergraduate and graduate level. Guilford describes POWA as “a distillation and collage of numerous writings, talks, and activities that I’ve developed over the years and tried out on students, colleagues, and mentors with varying degrees of success.” This writing guide and handbook is useful for distance education because it is easy to navigate, accessible to all students, and comprehensive.

Ease and Accessibility

The POWA site is well designed, which makes it easy to find information. The site has little graphics, which can make it less appealing to more visual learners. However, the site is still attractive and very user-friendly. The links for the site are provided in a top and left side navigation menu. The website also has an on-site search tool that quickly searches the entire site. The ease of navigation is important for distance education courses where students will have varying levels of computer literacy. The only knowledge needed in order to use this tool is knowledge of the Internet. The site utilizes interactive menus that are used on most websites. If used as a resource in a course, the tool does not need to be revised for any particular audience or modified to fit into the course.

POWA is free site, so there is not additional cost for it use. For free students can access all of the content as well as news and links to other writing resources. Registered members gain access to additional features, but these are not necessary for guidance through writing. Use of this resource will not add to the textbook burden.

Another reason the site is accessible is because it was designed for all students. The site was designed to be used by all writers; experienced writers as well as beginners can easily find information and understand it. This is another important element for distance education. Students enter the course with varying levels of competency for writing. This site can meet the students where they are. There is information for how to get started with writing as well as tips for more advanced writers on how to hone writing skills and improve what they have already written.


Comprehensive

POWA is a great writing guide/handbook but unlike traditional handbooks that focus on grammar and style, it teaches a process-based approach to writing. It achieves this by providing sections on all parts of the writing process. It features sections on discovering, organizing, revising, and editing. For example, the Discovering takes the student through choosing a subject, freewriting, observing details, asking journalists’ questions, dramatism, tagmemeics, and using outside sources. There is a comprehensive presentation of a wide range of prewriting techniques. Each section is explained clearly and most of them have practice activities at the end. Even a section like dramatism, which can be difficult for some students to grapple with and may be beyond most first-year composition classes, is explained in a clear manner: “Dramatism offers a simple yet effective way to generate ideas. It resembles the Journalists’ Questions and, like them, can be applied to many topics.” It goes on to provide examples of each part of dramatism/pentad and an explanation.

In addition to this, POWA also focuses on students working toward a product. It is primarily focused on the writing and very conducive to encourage students to create a product. There is background and explanation on different types of essays: informal essays, thesis/support essays, argumentative essays, and exploratory essays. The site also provides information on how to document sources. Each section of the site provides information, tips, and activities to help students incorporate the concepts.

Besides being free and easily accessible, this site can facilitate distance learning by acting as an additional resource and aid to students. This can be particularly useful in an online course where the student cannot get in contact with the instructor. Because it completely focuses on the teaching of writing, it is a reliable resource that can supplement what students learn in the course. This tool can provide an example for students to help them with their writing issues. POWA is similar to many other websites and handbooks that are available. It is very similar to Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL). Although, Purdue is extensive and very effective, it is not as easy to navigate as POWA. Handbooks such as the Little Brown are also available online. The Little Brown Handbook, like POWA, is also available in hard copy. The POWA is more accessible than the Little Brown as none of the POWA is restricted on the site. There is the same level of content on the POWA site as in the book.

Another interesting tidbit about POWA is its focus on community. The website is a place people to “write, share, and celebrate language.” Although, the free features are very effective and useful in a writing class, the features for registered members offers a great resource for a distance education writing class. Registered members have access to galleries, forums, profiles, instant messaging, special interest groups, and blogs. This element of the site shows collaborative writing and social networking in action in an academic writing context. The site itself is a lesson in collaborative and socially constructed learning. The site was created out of talks, lectures, and notes and continues to be developed through what is created on the forum and blogs. Registration is free; however, access to all of the writing content is available whether you register or not. Registration provides access to the blogs, forums, and other features mentioned above.

Overall, Paradigm Online Writing Assistant offers an array of content in an easy to navigate design that any student with web surfing experience can understand. The site is free to use and provides a wealth of information. It is a great reference for instructors and students whether they are in or teaching a developmental writing course or freshman composition. It can serve as primary reading material for the course or as supplemental reading. It is a great resource that instructors can use as a guide for students who need a little extra help with writing or for students who want to fine tune their product. It is also a good example of collaborative writing and sharing of knowledge in action. There are a lot of resources available to students online, but POWA is easy to access, navigate, and understand. This helps to ensure that no students are loss to the resources because of access, ability, or cost.

Transformative Pedagogy: Perfect for Web 2.0 and Collaboration

Meyers, Steven A. “Using Transformative Pedagogy When Teaching Online” College
Teaching. 56.4 (2008): 219-224. Web. 4 June 2010.


Steven Meyers article explores how transformative pedagogy works well for online learning. Meyers presents the idea that because transformative pedagogy encourages examination of assumptions, interaction with social issues, and social action it is ideal for faculty who teach online courses. Online courses attract a large number of students and a diverse group of students. This dynamic along with the fact that online class discussions are more informal, which challenges the traditional levels of power and authority in the classroom, and the “egalitarian environment” are good environments for teaching that encourages critical thinking, examination of societal patterns (219). Meyers focuses on the literature on transformative pedagogy and knowledge of the online environment to provide suggestions for how online instructors can use transformative pedagogy effectively. He supports these suggestions with student reflections. Meyers’ suggestions are:

•Create a safe and inviting environment
Transformative pedagogy does not focus on teaching styles that increase the power difference between instructor and student. The focus is on creating trust and the instructor acting as a guide and not as a great imparter of knowledge.

•Encourage students to think about their experiences, beliefs, and biases
Instructors should create discussion postings that encourage students to examine the source of their assumptions and consider alternative perspectives.

•Use teaching strategies that promote student engagement and participation
Meyers suggests Internet adaptations and extensions. Students should feel a responsibility to contribute to the class. Use of email and online newspapers to do analysis in a collaborative manner can help to increase student engagement. Internet extensions focus on using Internet tools not readily available in face-to-face such as weblogs, wikis, etc. These can generate student cooperation and collaborative construction of knowledge.

•Pose real-world problems that address societal inequalities
This approach encourages students to be aware of how society impacts people by examining race, social class, gender, sexual orientation, age, and disability, examining the systemic inequalities within the content and the tools themselves.

•Help students implement action-oriented solutions
This strategy focuses on rotating between student reflection and action. Students can participate in local projects; write editorials to local or university newspapers, creating activities, or participating in activities. The Internet can provide a resource for coordination, communication, and research.

Meyers article is a great resource for any instructor who wants to increase student engagement and collaboration along with addressing issues of conflict in society and ones that may arise within the classroom. It also aids instructors in avoiding the creation of a hegemonic learning environment. The article gives a good background on transformative pedagogy and insight into the online learning environment. The suggestions provided are realistic and useful in face-to-face and online courses. Composition courses often focus writing assignments on critical thinking, reflection, conflict, and argument. An online composition course is ideal for transformative pedagogy that seeks to give students knowledge of content, self-awareness, and a larger worldview. The Internet is an effective arena for this because there are more tools available for collaboration, communication, and information exchange.

Race in the CMC Classroom

Bomberger, Ann M. “Ranting about race: Crushed eggshells in computer-mediated communication.” Computers and Composition 21.2 (2004): 197-216. Web. 31 May 2010.



In this article, Bromberger explores how to tackle conflicts about race in computer-mediated communication (CMC). She touches on what an instructor can do in these types of situation to stop unnecessary conflict and to encourage students to work together. Bromberger begins the article by offering a scenario of students having a conflict about race. She emphasizes that just because conflict occurs in CMC doesn’t mean that it should not be used. She points out that CMC can be a dangerous tool if not handled correctly, but it has the potential to be a great tool to for effective class sense of community. She goes on to say that conflict is more likely in CMC than fact-to-face because of:
• Less inhibition
• Unfamiliar terrain
• Public embarrassment
• Frustration with technology
• Physical surroundings and conditions

From here Bromberger explores why an electronic discussion board is a good venue to address issues of race or any other emotionally charged topic (political or social). She states that using discussion board gives a voice to those who might otherwise remain silent and negotiating conflict is a vital life skill. From here she presents two scenarios. The first shows a student who learns about race through an angry negative discussion on gender. The second she shares a students rant about race on the discussion board. She uses these two scenarios to show that the Internet is not the great equalizer that it was touted to be. It was supposed to be a raceless and genderless place, but that is not the case. Bromberger presents that instructors who plan to use CMC must acknowledge this and the digital divide that is still presents ways to avoid conflict as well as the distinction between necessary conflict that is based on valid disagreement (teaching moment) and unnecessary conflict which is a distraction. The ways to avoid conflict are:
• Be sure that the topics are on the appropriate level for students
• Develop a sense of community
• Promote active, respectful listening
• Community generated guidelines
• Model appropriate posts
• Use personal narrative
• Anticipate and address White people’s defensiveness

She concludes that we should not have to walk on eggshells in the CMC classroom. She points out that dealing with conflicts and racial issues are not easy but they can be handled in a way that addresses and acknowledges all parties involved and provide a learning experience.
I think this is a great article for anyone interested in teaching online because you never know what the demographics of your class will be. Also, with teaching writing we often discuss social, political, and culture issues to encourage critical thinking and sophisticated use of language. These topics are areas where issues of race and ethnicity will come up. It is important to be aware of this when handling the class, creating discussions, and monitoring the students’ interactions. Bromberger makes a great point about allowing all sides to be heard; that is very important in creating community in an online class, which helps students to better interact with one another and with the content of the course.

Accountability and Commmunity in the Online Classroom

Fleckenstein, Kristie S. “Faceless students, virtual places: Emergence and communal accountability in online classrooms.” Computers and Composition 22.2 (2005):149-176. Web. 17 May 2010.

Summary:

Fleckenstein argues that online instructors should see the online classroom as an emergent identity in order to “address issues of affiliation within virtual words sites” (150). By looking at the virtual classroom as an emergent identity or emergent place, instructors can tackle issues of individual responsibility, community, and accountability. From here, Fleckenstein examines the challenges of creating community and accountability in the virtual classroom. She then looks at the complex systems theory to create a theory of virtual place. She continues by looking at the three elements that are apart of an emergent place: language, physical reality, and interpretant. She ends by posing that these elements need to be changed around and reorganized to create an emergent place for students.

In order to study these theories, Fleckenstein examines a fully online composition class. She examines their interactions or lack there of throughout the entire course in full class discussion and small group discussion, taking into account attendance and comments made within each environment. She also conducts exit-interviews with the students. What she presents through this study is that the virtual environment is a place that fosters poor community and accountability. In the face-to-face classroom these thing connected with physical presence and students ability to attach a face to one another. Cyberspace takes away the opportunity to build a community based on body and geography. The online classroom becomes an imaginary and non-literal place where words and actions have no really consequences because thing are not “real.” So students are not concerned about absences or dropping the ball on an assignment because it is not as bad as a real absence or a real missed assignment.

The answer to these issues is the complex systems approach to virtual space. This involves looking at things as being co-dependent. Fleckenstein presents the idea, “By perceiving some differences, and, thus, not perceiving others, people create not only their environments…Humans are created, self organized, by their own actions.” The key element that resides within complex systems theory is emergent identity: “When an array of activities and relationships reaches a critical point of complexity, it transforms itself into a new identity; one that relies on the performance of the entire system rather than on any one element of it (156). Emergent identity operates holistically. In an online environment place constitutes and emergent identity, so we have emergent place.

Fleckenstein continues by examine the students and the course in the areas of language, place, and interpretant. She points out that language is a lifeline in an online course and it can be used to marginalize students and as a weapon. Because of the lack of accountability and community, students will say things that they wouldn’t say face-to-face. The online environment often limits, controls, and set parameters on language and communication. In an online environment we must use language to incorporate so that it can be used to create community based on interests rather than shared physical space. She also calls for instructors and students to consider the physical in conjunction with the virtual space because student has outside things that influence their online presence. The two cannot be separated because in virtual classroom there is not control over where and when students learn and under what conditions, so their physical place is important for online pedagogy. There is also the issue of navigating the virtual place. Do students know when and where to post, what to discuss, and how. She proposes solutions of reorganizing language behaviors by increasing opportunities for students to interact over multiple environments. She next presents the need for linkage by having frequent and repeated feedback. Finally, she suggests “marking,” so students can create virtual faces for themselves. She also mentions acknowledging constraints on the virtual environment, encouraging students to take responsibility for their agency, having regular frequent meetings, creating routine, a set of social habits.


Review:

I think that this article is great for any instructor who is concerned with getting students more involved and responsible for their own activity and success in the course. I think it is especially important for those who teach writing at a distance because in online composition courses much of the course is focused on discussion, interaction, collaboration to deepen the understanding of ideas and concepts. The theories applied are a bit beyond the traditional used in composition and distance education research. I had to do extra research to look up information about a few of the theories. Even with all of that, I believe that this article sets up the necessary conversation about how to increase accountability and community online. There is not telling how many students is loss because they are marginalized in the virtual classroom or just cannot establish a virtual presence. If nothing else this article presents those ideas and forces the questions to be considered. I also think it speaks to the amount of control students have over their action and participation in the course. They have to be led to understand that they play a larger role in the online classroom than in face-to-face classroom. The author offered some good suggestions on how to address this issue, but they are easier said than done. I would like to see how the practical application of a few of the suggestions pan out. That is a different article.

Language and Power in the Online Environment

Sujo de Montes, L.E., Sally M. Oran, and Elizabeth M. Willis. “Power, language, and identity: Voices from an online course.” Computers and Composition. 19.3 (2002): 251-271. Web. 15 May 2010


In this article, Sujo de Montes, Oran, and Willis present an analysis of power and ethnic identity in their online education and writing course. The main argument is teachers should not ignore issues or race, ethnicity, and power because they hinder the opportunity for ethnic identity development. They also point out that often in online writing environments the race factor is usually in the “off” position or the position of the dominant race, in this case the “default” White position. Because we are at the beginning of exploring pedagogy in online environments, educators need to examine how issues of power and relationships occur when dialogue is not in the face-to-face classroom. The authors posit that when developing course teachers should consider: “How do invisible body language, tones of voice, and facial expression impact the construction of meaning in online learning? How do we negotiate power relationships among students whose varying ethnicities, ages, and abilities are not explicit?” The authors feel that their research and the implications of the work show that instructors, especially those with a constructivist approach to knowledge, need to consider power, identity, and ethnicity when designing a course.

To explore these issues the authors examined their online course, which included minority students. Through their dialogue on the course bulletin board, incidents occurred between majority and minority students that revealed insights about views on power and ethnicity. The landscape of the online classroom has changed from the “typically over 26 years old, highly motivated, self-disciplined, goal oriented, with average or better verbal and quantitative skills, and with relatively easy access to telecommunication facilities.” These days the online student has become multicultural and many of them do no have good access to education. The authors go through 3 events that occurred on the class discussion board that presents issues of power, language, and ethnicity. They take each event and break it down, showing what power and language issues were in play as well as how the students and instructors reacted both on the discussion board and off. The incidents revealed mainly that because of cultural differences students interpret specific words, phrases, and scenarios differently. The incidents also showed how both minority students and majority students would back down or be “silenced” from certain issues out of fear or confusion with the situation. The majority students did not understand or see their privilege and the minority students couldn’t help but interpret some statements as being negative toward their ethnicity (even though they were not mean to be). The ultimate goal is to find a way for “all members of an electronic learning community to participate equally and sensitively so that no one is silenced or privileged.”

I enjoyed reading this article because I have experienced both sides of this scenario as a student and instructor. Being a minority, I have had situations where my voice was silenced by students and instructors, who did not take into account the “difference” of my experience. I know how it feels to be “othered.” A face-to-face class affords students the opportunity to interpret body language, tone, facial expressions, etc. to see what meanings are behind statements. In an online class these cues are not available, so students can often misinterpret harmless statements as being racist or prejudice. It also allows students who in the majority to make ethnocentric statements without seeing the impact it has on the minority students.
I think this article is helpful because it brings attention to an issue that is often overlooked. There has to be a way to talk about sensitive issues, which may involve race, in an all-inclusive way. Teachers should learn how to handle these situations as well as build on them for the educational value they present; issues of ethnic identity, discourse communities, power, and connections to language and identity are built into many of these situations. I never want a class I instruct to have any of these issues in the “off” position. I also do not want them to turn to the dominant culture, possibly “silencing” other students.

The study used in this article was small and of course does not reflect all situations. I wish that more ethnicities were included. I also would have like the instructors to try to follow up with students to see what they learned, how they felt after the course, and if it impacted their approach to similar situations. I see how this can impact a writing class where issues are often of a social, cultural, and political nature. It makes me wonder what students, if any, I may have silenced or “othered,” The authors suggest critical reflection for both student and instructor. I think that is a good first step, but what else can be done through course design or pedagogy to prevent the events from this article from becoming ubiquitous.

Social Networking and the Composition Classroom: Why?

Why do instructors who teach writing at a distance need to know about the ins, outs, ups, and downs of social networking?

Because its the future would be my quick answer. Truthfully, social networking provides what many writing instructors search for: practical writing experience. Social networking gives students an audience to be aware of as well as a way to work on constructing their ethos. As a writing instructor who has used social networking sites in the classroom, I see that there is great potential there. My worry is that the opportunity to meet students where they are and to give them practical experience with rhetoric will be overlooked.

Another reason social media is a perfect partner or tool for the online writing classroom is that it can help in community building. Giving students a place to create, build, or take part in a Facebook group or a special hash tag on Twitter. These exclusive clubs help with building an online community that may even continue after the course has ended.

There are many benefits to social media and composition. The online writing environment is a good place for these to meet. The Maranto and Barton article about social networking is a good start for anyone who teaches writing at a distance that may want to venture into using social networking to build community or fun writing practice.

Social Networking and the Composition Classroom

Maranto, Gina and Matt Barton. “Paradox and Promise: MySpace, Facebook, and the Sociopolitics of Social Networking in the Writing Classroom.” Computers and Composition 27.1 (2010): 36-47. Science Direct. Web. 15 March 2010.

In “Paradox and Promise…” Maranto and Barton explore the use of social networking sites in the writing classroom. Their main argument is that social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook are tools that can both benefit and a danger to the writing classroom. Social networking sites provide a place for scholars and students to explore issues of identity construction, rhetoric, and the creation of discourse communities. However, teachers entering into this space can endanger the ethos of both the student and the teacher. The relationships created on these social networking sites undercut traditional rhetorical spaces by allowing a different less structured space for interaction. Even with the huge risks “as rhetoricians, we cannot afford to ignore the opportunities for learning, for social and political engagement, that online networking affords” (44).

            They begin the argument by defining social networking (MySpace and Facebook) and exploring research already established in social networking. They provide a glimpse at the major issues studies in social networking have explored: behavior, identity, and social standing. From here the argument moves to comparing or presenting social networking as a remediation of the high school activities of cruising and courtship. This presents social networking as another tradition or ritual that students take part in. The commonality is that “these rituals have always blurred the line between public and private (39).” The biggest fear about social networking or online, in general, is privacy. The Internet can be a dangerous place, and the authors point out that the biggest fear seems to be child pornography. From the coming together of child pornography and social networking via the Internet and social networking, many feel that virtual spaces are more dangerous than physical spaces. Social networking is a perfect space to create false identities, lure, deceive, etc. 

            However, it is also a great place for students to explore themselves and the world. Maranto and Barton share that social networking sites are great spaces to examine identity formation. It does stop there; there are also categories, labels, pop culture, politics, socialization, and a host of other things to be explored through social networking. Most eye opening is their arguments that social networking sites are tools that can help students become symbol analyst. They build off of Robert Reich’s argument about the need to train future generations to be symbol-analyst. Reich’s argument states, “The future of the world’s economy depends far less on mastering content than building and maintaining robust social networks, where ideas are quickly disseminated and acted on from points scattered all over the world. As their name implies, symbolic analysts thrive in the abstract world of the virtual (43).”  His theory focuses on the areas of “abstraction, system thinking, experimentation, and collaboration” (44). All of these elements are found in social networking.

            I found the article to be a good starting point. The authors provide a good overview of social networking along with the issues and theories connected with social networks. I would recommend this to any instructor who wants to know what all the fuss is about. I enjoyed the overview of the concerns, major studies, and the positives of social networking. However, I am ready for us to move past social networking as a place to examine identity formation; there are some many other things to be explored. I appreciated the connection they made to Reich’s research in symbols.  I have always been interested in this, and as we move further into media convergence, I think encouraging students to be symbol-analyst will become more common. It is directly connected to composition because of the ideas of abstraction and collaboration. Overall, this is a good starting point to explore how social networking can be used in writing classes. I would have liked to see some commentary on how it is currently being used. The dangers of it are well publicized and the popular benefits are known, but how are writing instructors using it in their courses?

Teaching @ a Distance

Hi!

I am currently enrolled in ENG 795 Teaching Writing @ a Distance. This blog is all about exploring the issues and theories related to teaching writing at a distance. Distance education and distance learning is the newest craze in Higher Education (not completely true). Teaching online is the future. More and more people are deciding that driving to campus and sitting in a traditional classroom just doesn't work or isn't an option. I jumped on the bandwagon and began teaching at proprietary colleges and universities because I wanted a job with security. When the economy started going downhill my job security increased. It sounds horrible, but it is the truth. When the job market is bad more people go back to school to expand their options. That makes my life easier because I teach composition; no matter what the student's  major may be he or she has to take composition.

Anyway, I've been teaching online now for about 2 years. It has been one the most frustrating and enlightening experiences of my life. Through this blog I hope to share some of my issues with teaching online, explore some new ideas, learn some theory, and ultimately, become a better instructor.

My main issues and concerns are situated around identity, minorities, power, language, faculty advancement, ethics of proprietary colleges/universities, and accountability. I know that sounds like a lot, but I plan to narrow my focus as I go along. All these issues are near and dear to me because they are things I have had to deal with being an instructor who is young, African-American, and female. The majority of my students are about 20-30 years older than me and Caucasian.  It has made for an interesting experience, but it is also an experience that I do not want others to go through. This course and blog will hopefully lead to a positive impact on the bustling industry that higher education has become. If not, at least I get to vent, right?

Thanks for reading! Journey well.

-V