blog is a funny word

Pedagogical Tool Review 

Here is a quick look at some of my thoughts on  Blackboard’s 9.1 release.

Kahn-Egan, Seth. “Pedagogy of the Pissed: Punk Pedagogy in the First-Year Writing Classroom.” College Composition and Communication 49.1 (1998) 99-104
< http://bit.ly/dpQPNI>
 
 
In this article, Seth Kahn-Egan briefly outlines what he sees as the major tenants of the punk subculture. Through this, he constructs a pedagogy dedicated to providing students with opportunities for “constructing new realities of their own design,” (100). Describing punk as a proactive force that is reconstructive as well as destructive, Kahn-Egan discusses how the ideologies of punk can transform traditional instruction by providing opportunities to learn, “passion, commitment, and energy” (100). Addressing DIY through composition, Kahn-Egan asserts that his pedagogy will allow students to, “take charge of their writing and hence of their lives, discovering that words they put on a page mean something,” (102).
 
Kahn’s suggestions are refreshingly practical, yet radical at the same time. He does not suggest that academic writing be thrown out of the window, nor does he advocate an anarchistic classroom overall. Rather, he suggests that the tension inherent in the punk classroom can be used to analyze and discuss power and action, and that the use of academic writing will give students the opportunity to use the language of power structures in order to transform them.
 
I would recommend this article for the distance writing educator for a number of reasons. Although written largely before the advent and proliferation of Web 2.0 technologies and their integration into writing courses, this piece concisely articulates the need that many modern educators have addressed: a need for pedagogies which allow students to become activists through their writing. Kahn-Egan’s punk pedagogy also advocates for students to use writing to become agents of change. The flexibility of his pedagogy also keeps his argument relevant as writing educators negotiate the affordances of new technologies.
 
Since distance educators often make use of these technologies, Kahn-Egan’s argument can be especially helpful in considering other technological issues.  While attention has been given to how these technologies create opportunities for activist student writing, this article can also remind us to also examine these technological structures from a DIY ethical perspective. Too often, it seems to me, we neglect to investigate the ideologies of the institutions, corporations, and platforms that underlie the technological structures we use in our instruction. Though Kahn-Egan talks mainly of the instructor’s precarious position in terms of the authoritarian construct, in order to practice what we preach, we must be aware of our positions in the structures within which we find ourselves technologically as well, so we can know when to accept, subvert, or reject them.

Harris, Joseph. “The Idea of Community in the Study of Writing.” College Composition and Communication. 40:1 (1989) NCTE. Pp. 11-22.

          In this essay, Joseph Harris argues that the term “community” has no “positive opposition term” (13) therefore, redefining hegemonic and hierarchical terms within the academy around the concept of community can result in a lack of fundamental change in these structures. He suggests that theorists use of the word only result in making these structures seem a “nicer, friendlier, fuzzy version of what came before” (13). In particular, David Bartholomae’s essay “Creating the University” is challenged as Harris suggests that here the possibility of writing in a variety of borderless and unique ways is quickly transmuted into a discourse of the university which is not ever-shifting or changing but uniform and static. Harris continues to work with this essay to demonstrate how Bartholomae uses “community” as a stabilizing term, posited between the instability of dynamic discourses and fixed academic discourses. Harris rejects this position of stability as it negates the real-life tensions and struggles of real writers. The term “community”, he suggests, in this and other conversations, is as nebulous and utopian a term as that of “the university,” “the profession,” or “the academic discourse community” (14). Harris also critiques the words of Patricia Bizzel and her assessment of how students move from one discourse community to another as a mode of socialization and assimilation into a position of privilege (16). Rather than arguing for a “value-free” pedagogy, Harris suggests we, as writing instructors, consider our work as an effort to complicate the discourses of our students, and to encourage them towards a “kind of polyphony”(18). He suggests that we should see academic discourse as a space in which “competing beliefs and practices intersect”, and he cites Bizzel’s later assertions that instructors should become accustomed to dealing with contractions (20).

          While this discussion of “community” and discursive communities may seem removed from the discussion of how to create community within the distance classroom, it is a worthy read for those of us engaged with concepts relating to teaching writing at a distance.  While Harris raises questions we must ask ourselves as writing instructors, this article also raises questions for the distance writing instructor. First, what is our notion of community when we discuss it in terms of distance education? Do our notions correspond with our students’ notions of community? I believe that it is important that we understand our definitions of community as well as our notions of discursive communities because, in distance education, how we define one will ultimately help to define the other. How we define and hope to shape the communities of our distance classrooms will define our expectations for these microcosmic discourse communities. If we hope to democratize distance learning, we must understand our own definitions of these terms so that we do not inadvertently privilege our notions of community in the classroom or in the discourse created in our classrooms. To neglect this self examination would be to continue to play into a privileged objectivist model of education that could undermine the creation of a truly productive space and perhaps widen the “distance” between students, their peers, and their instructor.

Black, Rebecca. “Fanfiction Writing and the Construction of Space.” E-Learning and Digital Media 4:4 (2007) Web. http://www.wwwords.co.uk

In this article, Black discusses “fanfiction”, or fiction written by fans about existing media canons, and the role of fan-created virtual writing spaces in scaffolding written literacy skills. While this article deals with ELL adolescent education and presents a comparison between these online writing spaces and f2f classroom environments, the limitations of the presented discussion as well as the high points can inform the distance writing educator. Black argues that the values of these spaces are transferable to the traditional classroom and that educators must find ways to learn strategies from online spaces to foster learning in these environments. While I agree with this sentiment, I believe that a more critical eye should be turned to these spaces, despite their values, if effective pedagogical practices are to be gleaned from them.

The site of the interactions discussed in this article is the fanfiction database fanfiction.net. Interestingly, Black asks the reader to consider this as a space rather than as a community. Black discusses briefly how social capital is established within the space/community as well as the economy of participation that underlies interaction on the site. However, I find that this article lacks adequate discussion of the social hierarchies and hegemonic structures that are created in this space/community. The author discusses how the affordances of the site allow for ELL writers, as well as other participants, to interact with others on a level playing field. However, assuming fanfiction.net to be a purely democratic space renders discussions of like spaces as idealized and leaves them to be inadequately represented. It is not enough to determine that the technological affordances of a particular virtual writing space enable participants to interact fully within the community, rather, less implicit structures of power, social economy, and social capital must be examined if we are to consider these spaces as models for distance writing communities and collaboration.

Importantly, this article discusses how this online space provides writers with the chance to write for real audiences. It also shows how this online space provides modeling opportunities for writing, editing, and discussion. While the author argues that this type of virtual space also allows for writers to write for a purpose rather than for a disposable grade, I neither agree completely with this sentiment nor with the implicit assumption that this rarely takes place in a teacher-led classroom. This assumption should not be used as a boiler plate for all teacher-led writing instruction. It is important that online writing instructors do not purely build pedagogy on assumptions neither positive— in this case the assumption of democracy in fan communities, nor negative— the assumption of a lack of audience or purpose in teacher-led instruction.

For our purposes, an examination of the social nature of these interactions can be helpful in thinking of ways in which writing can be an increasingly social and communal activity in the distance classroom. However, these social interactions must be given a critical eye before putting them into practice.

Citation

Hakke, Joerg M., Pfister, Hans-Rüdiger. (2010). “Scripting a distance-learning university course: Do students benefit from net-based scripted collaboration?” International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5 (2), 191-210. doi: 10.1007/s11412-010-9083-7

Overview

The researchers involved in this study were hoping to learn whether scripted collaborations in net-based distance learning environments allow distance students to learn concepts better than their peers participating in unscripted net-based learning environments. The study participants were students in a computer science course on operating systems. The researchers used a series of collaborative writing projects centering on course material and broken down into brainstorming, clustering, and essay writing stages.  The control groups were instructed on the project’s process at the start of the experiment. The scripted groups’ instruction was constructed as a series of scripted steps. The scripted groups were unable to deviate from the process as directed by the script. The control groups, however, were allowed the ‘freedom’ to complete the steps of the collaborative writing exercises without scripting. CURE was used as a platform for both the scripted and unscripted learning spaces. Each stage was evaluated as a product, rather than a process, as researchers assessed each group’s ‘correct’ responses and results. The students were tested by multiple choice exams at the end of the study, though the authors suggest this form of assessment may have been a limitation of the study. Ultimately, the researchers determined that there was no difference between the results of each group’s learning throughout the course of the study.

Rhetorical Limitations of the Discussion

While the CURE platform’s functionalities were described for the control groups, I felt little attention was given to the limitations on what the researches call the control group’s ‘freedom’ to approach the task. While scripting may not be overt for the control group, the affordances of CURE still construct parameters for activities that are mediated by its platform. The study also uses language which propagates a conduit-like metaphor (Reddy, 1979) for both the scripts used to regulate and inform student activity, as well student to student communication. Assumptions like these must be challenged especially in pedagogical and rhetorical situations.

Limitations for English Studies

For our purposes as writing instructors, this study is of limited use, but we are also likely not the intended audience of this study. There is little discussion of rhetorical processes or mediated communication in this article. Scripting seems to be the only condition addressed within the learning environments studied, and while this may seem elemental as the topic of argument, failing to mention other issues of mediated communication and collaboration takes away from its usefulness to our field of study.   

While this study includes various stages in the writing process as part of the investigative process, these stages are ultimately evaluated by product rather than by process due to the end goals of this particular project and likely the conventions of the researchers’ fields of study. This distinction should be taken into account when exploring any such study from an English studies perspective, as the writing process comprises a large part of the rhetorical process as a whole.

Carr-Chellman, Alison A., Dean Dyer, and Jeroen Breman.  “Burrowing Through The Network Wires: Does Distance Detract From Collaborative Authentic Learning?” The Journal of Distance Education 15: 1 (2000): 39-62. Web. <www.jofde.ca>
 
The researchers begin this article by explaining that they mean to examine the feasibility of authentic problem-based collaborative work in a distance-based educational model. Two groups of instructional design students, one group at a distance and one group in residency, were selected as samples. The researchers found that under certain circumstances, authentic collaboration could be achieved, though they also found that face-to-face collaboration was preferable and that much of the success of collaboration was based on the experiences of the students involved. The researchers flag a potential bias against distance-based collaboration early on, and also make sure to note that the course used in this study was not significantly rewritten for the distance-based sample. Though dated, this article provides an interesting historical perspective on distance learning, as well as the doubts and challenges that arose in the earlier days of internet accessibility.

First, even in 1997, the line between ‘distance student’ and ‘residential student’ was becoming blurred. While the researchers attribute this to a market factor, I believe that there are likely other social conventions and occupational expectations that may play into this phenomenon that must be taken into consideration when designing courses today. Also, the researchers suggest that more distinct groups of distance vs. residential students would have been preferred subjects of study. I would suggest that this blur has only increased since this study was published in 2000, and that the observations noted here provide an interesting lens with which to view the affect of widespread internet and web-based technology on both modes of instruction and learning.
 
Though only a small part of this discussion, the researchers note a frustration level within the participants, particularly at a distance, of group work taking place between students with varying levels of technological expertise. The researchers also provide the recommendation that distance students have appropriate ‘entry level’ skills. In 2010, I believe that too much expectation is put upon the younger generations in particular to have a base knowledge of how to use communicative and productive technological tools. As the students in this study noted a difficulty in negotiating these different experience levels, modern students in collaborative distance settings will face these same challenges as well as the challenge of being expected to have a certain amount of technological literacy before entering into the collaborative process. The suggestions that audio support and technical support should be available for students have widely been enacted as broadband-based communicative technologies have been largely expanded and put into practice in many distance-based courses where video is now a preferred medium. It must be ensured through our current practices that adequate support is provided to students to collaborate and interact through these mediums.
 
While several points are well taken from this article, it is important that we rephrase the researcher’s major study question for our practices. Rather than asking if it is possible for distance-based collaboration to meet expectations of current understandings of authentic learning, we must ask how we will help to create a learning environment with those goals in mind.

Heike Jenss

 “Dressed in History: Retro Styles and the Construction of Authenticity in Youth Culture”

Biography quoted from Parsons The New School For Design website: www.parsons.edu, where Heike Jenss is listed as an Assistant Professor of Fashion Studies in the School of Art and Design History and Theory:

 “Heike Jenss is director of the new MA Fashion Studies program, launching in Parsons School of Art and Design History and Theory in fall 2010. Beyond working on this groundbreaking MA program, which will be the first of its kind in the US, she developed new courses in fashion studies on the undergraduate level, including Fashion in Global Contexts. Her research explores fashion as material culture and cultural practice, with an emphasis on identity and individualization processes, as well as consumption in youth culture, retro-styles, vintage dress and the relation of fashion and time. She received her MA and Ph.D. degree with summa cum laude from Dortmund University, where she studied Cultural Anthropology of Textiles at the Institute of Arts and Material Culture. Before joining the faculty of Parsons The New School for Design in 2006, Heike Jenss taught at Dortmund University and worked as a research fellow in the interdisciplinary project Uniformity in Motion: The Process of Uniformity in Body and Dress, funded by the Volkswagen Foundation. She has presented at international conferences and contributed articles to numerous publications, including Design Studies: A Reader and the journal Fashion Theory. Her first book Sixties Dress Only: Mode und Konsum in der Retro-Szene der Mods published by Campus Verlag in 2007 is based on an ethnographic study of the consumption of 1960s fashion by youth and adolescents in the early 21st century.”

       Parsons The New School for Design

       http://www.newschool. edu/parsons/faculty.aspx?id=48749

       Accessed 4/11/10

Article: “Dressed in History: Retro Styles and the Construction of Authenticity in Youth Culture”

  “Although the concept of authenticity has been challenged as a useful

explanatory tool in cultural analysis, it is clear that a tag of authenticity

is a powerful force in selling goods. Not only does authenticity refer to

new and original objects and themes but also to the re-creation or revival

of objects and motifs from the past. Indeed, Mark Jones has argued that

the concern for authenticity has grown with the passion for revivalism

(Jones 1992: 7). This phenomenon is especially noticeable in the desire

for authenticity in fashion. But what is the link between authenticity and

the reproduction and appropriation of former styles? And what are the

connotations of authenticity in the context of body and dress?” (1)

Retro vs. Authentic

 “By contrast to consumers of retro styles in the high street, retro groups

like the contemporary Sixties scene immerse themselves in a re-creation

of the authenticity of the period. They wear original Sixties clothes as part

of an entire “Sixties-like” lifestyle, re-performing the historic look complemented

by matching accessories, hairstyles, and makeup.” (2)

Challenges to Authenticity

According to Jenss authenticity is challenged by several things:

• Selective cultural memories that highlight a stereotype of the era’s fashion. Jenss suggests this creates a “hyper-version” of the 1960s when these styles “recur in dense concentration” (6).
• The shape, posture, and movements of contemporary bodies may actually clash with the materiality of historic garments and transform their “original” appearance. (6)
• Body types are also different generally than they were in the 60s, and aesthetics are different for the idealized female body (8).
• Hairstyles are affected by change of hygienic standards (8)
• “New bodies and new technologies give old styles a new look. Authenticity is shifting its appearance.” (8)

Authenticity is therefore a construct…

“In the romantic understanding, the authentic identity or inner self

is regarded as obsolete, as identity is not stable but constantly transforming

and momentary (Reiss 2003: 17). We must reject the polarization of

the self as, on the one hand, constructed and styled and, on the other,

natural (see Entwistle 2000: 113) since the construction of identity

invariably involves artifice and performance.” (9)

60’s Fashion, Dry Wit, and around the 3 minute marker, 60’s people go retro:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3JfOL-UODc

Some points of authenticity brought up this semester….

Dave’s Pearl Jam Shirt:

http://www.backstreetmerch.com/product.asp?item=PJAM41

The Corset Discussion:

Tight Lacing: http://www.waspcreations.com/mid-hip-corset.htm

Lingerie: http://www2.victoriassecret.com/commerce/onlineProductDisplay.vs?namespace=productDisplay&origin=onlineProductDisplay.jsp&event=display&prnbr=GV-250168&atp=a

“Subculture”: http://www.hottopic.com/hottopic/Apparel/Tops/Corsets/Red-Vinyl-Double-Zipper-Strapless-Corset-287375.jsp

“Mainstream”: http://shop.guess.com/ProductDetails.aspx?style=W02229BD7H0&image=W02229BD7H0-TWHT&mr:trackingCode=57A63580-DE3C-DF11-A0C8-002219318F67&mr:referralID=NA

Shawn did a really nice biographical intro to Jenkins on his blog at http://sdayx008.grads.digitalodu.com/blog/?p=58.

Jenkins begins this chapter with a quote from Francis Ford Coppola expressing the hope that newer technologies will allow “people who normally wouldn’t make movies” to take movie making from a professional occupation to an art form (549). This chapter focuses on how Star Wars became a starting point for not only a proliferation of parody, but also for creative fan expression. Jenkins explains that these parodies are no longer simply the realm of niche fan movements, but have largely become main stream, especially thanks to this Star Wars phenomenon. Jenkins argues that the democratization and modes of expression and distribution that are accessible to fans “alters” and “intersects” our notions of both amateur film making and commercialized film making.

Media Convergence

American cinema privilege– High concept

Books, hooks, and looks: material from other media, easily summarized narrative hooks, striking icons and quotable lines (553).

Jenkins argues that the ancillary markets make it hard to figure out where the narrative core actually is and what is really ancillary in terms of the product success (553).

Development of Franchises

“…actively encourages viewers to pursue their interests in media content across various transmission channels, to be alert to the potential for new experiences offered by these various tie-ins” (553).

Pressure to integrate technology and to create more and more access points for consumption.

Requires monitoring of fan responses… (553)

Participatory Culture

Responds to the “demands on popular culture which the studios are not yet, and perhaps never will be, able to satisfy. The first and foremost demand consumers make is the right to participate in the creation and distribution of media narratives. Media consumers want to become media producers, while media producers want to maintain their traditional dominance over media content” (554).

Importance of the Xerox Machine: ‘Zines and fan publications, BBS, etc.

                Fan Fiction: Only PG rated fan fiction allowed! (‘cause that’s what the films are!)

Participatory Culture challenges one authoritative text, presents difficulty to those that seek to control IP.

Beautiful Paradox: “[Will] Brooker argues that the rebellion depicted in the Star Wars films provides a useful model for thinking about the coalition-based cultural politics which define this whole DIY movement.  Fans resist Lucasfilm crackdowns inspired by “Lucas’ romantic myth about grassroots resistance to controlling institutions” (558).

The DIY Loop

                QuentinTarantino

                Kevin Smith

How do these uses of Beyonce’s “All the Single Ladies” play into these concepts?

Beyonce: All the Single Ladies

(Glee) Kurt: All the Single Ladies

Team: All the Single Ladies

John Barrowman: All the Single Ladies

Questions:

Is the mainstream appreciation of parody and other expressions previously left to the fan community really as open a platform to afford further cinematic fan efforts the type of influence Jenkins argues they have?

Stuart Hall is a cultural theorist and former associate of Raymond Williams. He was born in Jamaica and moved to Britain in the 1950s. He was educated at Oxford, and was a leading voice in the Birmingham school of British cultural studies. 

Encoding/Decoding

Stuart Hall critiques the traditional linear method of viewing mass communication (senderà messageà receiver) for failing to recognize the processes of mass communication as a very complex series of events. Rather, Hall contends that it is more useful to think of mass communication as a linked series of moments: production, circulation, distribution/consumption, reproduction (163).  Hall contends that this structure is more similar to Marx’s explanation of commodity culture, with each of these moments taking a form which is specific to the moment in which it occurs.

Hall maintains that “sign vehicles” (163) are organized within the discourse of mass communication and operate as a product. The production and circulation of these sign vehicles, however, do not guarantee the meaning which will be derived from the audience, and if no meaning is taken from them, then consumption cannot occur.  Each condition of the circuit must be completed in order to maintain this discursive process.

While Hall admits that the transmitted production is privileged and laden with encoded signs that are meant to be decoded, he stresses no form in the discursive labor process can precisely dictate how it will be decoded, nor how the imparted message will be reproduced. Hall also states, “We are now fully aware that this reentry into the practices of audience reception and “use” cannot be understood in simple behavioural terms,” (165). Also, the level of “misunderstanding” that can occur throughout the process highly depends on a “”the degrees of identity/non-identity” between the encoder-producer and the decoder-receiver.

Hall maintains that although certain visual signs appear to be “natural” they are actually “naturalized” (167). Frequently used visual signs appear to bypass encoding and decoding, however, Hall suggests that the receiving of these codes are unconscious in environments where their use is naturalized, but still highly coded. Hall warns against the use of denotation and connotation suggesting that there are “very few instances in which signs organized in a discourse signify only their “literal” (that is the near-universally consensualized ) meaning,” (168). He also explains that even visual signs are already encoded and are the interpretation of these signs is subject to the codes of culture and ideology of the decoder/receiver.

Hall also warns against the idea of “determined” readings, as denotated codes may imply only “dominant” or preferred cultural readings, but the connotative field may be subject to different cultural aspects than the dominant culture prefers.

Hall suggests it is possible to identify three positions from which televisual decodings can arrive from:

Dominant Hegemonic Position: The dominant encodings are decoded fully in this position in terms of their reference codes. This position operates within the dominant culture and code and is the “ideal-typical case of “perfectly transparent communication”—or as close as we are likely to come to it,” (171).

Negotiated Code or Position: This position realizes the hegemonic dominant position, but negotiates decoding through “local conditions”, (172).This is a position in which ‘”misunderstandings” arise from contradictions” between hegemonic dominant encoding and negotiated decoding, (172).

Oppositional Code: Coded events are negotiated and decoded to give an oppositional reading (173).

 Analysis

Hall’s work does much to illuminate the position in which individuals are responsible within the process of televisual discoursive events. Initially, I was concerned that his three positions may be somewhat limiting, but after some thought, I don’t have much in the way of critiquing this piece. I like that Hall clearly elucidates “dominant” readings over “determined” readings, and clearly establishes how misunderstandings in transmitted events come about. I highly recommend checking out some of the videos listed below because Hall is just as interesting and insightful in person as in his prose.

Diagrams and further reading:

                                http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem08c.html

 Some Interesting Stuart Hall Links:

On Visual Representation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTzMsPqssOY 

Featuring Stuart Hall: Race: The Floating Signifier (#$%! language):                                                                                           http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMo2uiRAf30&feature=related

Interview with Stuart Hall, 2006:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBfPtRaGZPM&feature=related

(edit for bio: 7:15 pm)