Here's the link to PDFs for a recent issue of Computers and Composition. It's a must read for those of you doing anything related to media. (Also Tom will enjoy the ESL article). Blog your comments on methodology, opening lines, uses of student text, conversations joined, news--anything that seems a little different.
http://www.unm.edu/~sromano/english640/PDFs/Computers%20and%20Composition/
NEW NOTE: Here's a link to Cynthia Selfe's and Gail Hawisher's article about how they have, over the years, thought about their roles as editors. Useful for those of you publishing in this journal. Note that a heading on down is called "Turning to Recent Times"
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/pedagogy/v004/4.1hawisher.html
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Computers and Composition
Posted by Susan Romano at 6:41 PM
Labels: Computers and Composition
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I think I am noticing a wider range of approaches or scope of methodology here whereas methodological approach seemed to be fairly consistent within the other individual journals we've looked at (if I’m remembering correctly). For example, the 'fraternities and IText' article as well as ‘students’ responses to digital texts’ both seem to use more of a ‘case-study’ approach—-in depth genre-based analysis of an interfraternity council’s organizational website and testimony from individual students on their experiences reading a literary hypertext with far less of a focus on conducting an extensive lit review while the articles on plagiarism and the digital divide (‘re-thinking access…’) did seem to take the more literature review methodology approach we discussed.
Given my subject matter, I am most interested in publishing in this journal (as well as probably Kairos). In many of the other journals we’ve looked at--RSQ, TCQ, College English--I think I’ve been really aware of the complexity of the arguments being made. The level of scholarly knowledge as well as the complexity of background research needed to really set up the argument really stood out to me whereas here, either because I’m more familiar with this content and perhaps the ‘back conversation’ or because the authors gave less detail, publishing in this journal seems more ‘do-able’ for me or now that we're at the end of our analysis, the rhetorical strategies are more obvious to me. TCQ was certainly familiar territory (while RSQ was not! yet I still recognized it!), yet I really get this sense that this is the journal I should aim for.
I made a quick run through a couple of articles, but most of them were about teaching composition so I have chosen to look more closely at "Access(ing), habits, attitudes and engagements" by Powell. I find it interesting that her abstract does not name drop at all (in stark contrast to the abstracts in other articles I scanned from this issue). In her introduction, she takes a very unusual approach--she frames her argument in terms of race and gender arguments. So her initial offering of texts is outside of the topic in many ways. This gives me serious food for thought, since I have been freaking out about not finding enough recognizable scholarship.
Now, this woman may be so well known in the field that she doesn't HAVE to be in the big middle of an ongoing conversation and can place her argument in a more abstract conversation, but I am getting some great ideas here.
The ideas of access and practice are fairly central to my argument, so I am going to re-read this for content as well.
I don't really understand her "outline" headings--they don't seem to flow in the form that she has created them. The third one, for example, seems to be her main point, but it is buried among five points that would appear equal in value given their headings. It makes the paper a bit difficult to navigate--if I am given a hierarchy of some sort, I expect it to follow the hierarchical plan.
This becomes especially problematic as you move in to her conclusion. She does indeed have a conclusion--well, she asks some new questions and hypothesizes new answers. But this section is merely the end of #5 on her organizational chart.
But, she does something I think I may be doing with my article, and this is she combines the humanities approach with a social science methodology--she has both text/argument as well as direct observation from a classroom setting. While I'm not looking at a classroom, I do have direct access to the writers in the discourse community I am writing about.
I'm looking at the Evans/Po article students reading hypertext. Greg, the opening section gives you some sense of what one can say that is common knowledge among new media folks, and some sense of the numbers and placements of citations. In other words, you can use this opening to assess the relationship between and among:
1. references to an ongoing conversation that can go UNcited
2. the parenthetical citations that authorize the writer to speak
3. the development of a problem or "gap" (they even use this term), used to frame their "news" and research.
YOu can also use this section to begin developing a list of commonly cited authors, e.g., Bolter and Johnson-Eilola or the journal Kairos as the elements of the conversation you will be joining.
I found this journal to be highly relevant for my proposed research and discussion. I particularly liked Howard's article on plagairism because it addresses the social and psychological interaction students have with the Internet.
The Evans/Po article has an introduction that I'd like to map to because it does succintly summarize new media and student understanding. However, their article focuses exclusively on hypertext and student reactions and comprehension related to reading assigned text online. I'm more interested in the rhetoric of miltimodal online media - YouTube, News Sites, social networking sites, Blogs, etc. - and how the students learn to filter and analyze the mass of rhetoric they encounter constantly. I may only limit it to YouTube to keep the topic easier to write about.
This is one of the journals I want to focus on. RSQ is possibility as well.
I must say that out of the many journals that we've addressed, I really didn't lean toward this one as much as I did College English or CCC. But in reviewing some of the articles, there are relevant topics to consider which correspond with teaching. For example, the issue of internet plagiarism is something that all teachers should make an effort to find out more about. I did like how the abstracts were presented with keywords. I read 4 abstracts and found them to be engaging and helpful. I also was referred to an article written by Iswari P. Pandey, a student from Nepal, but studying in the US. His article, "Literate lives across the digital divide," is a narrative which reflects how his country's political agenda affects his own development of a digital literacy. He weaves into this narrative the "cultural, linguistic, and political contexts that had a bearing on his experience" (247). Lastly, he encourages teachers to consider the politics of culture in an effort to better understand individual writing/literacy practices of students. I plan to borrow from this article for my own article in reference to the importance and role of culture and understanding students who bring this with them to the classroom.
I think Computers and Composition seemed very much like Kairos- timely AND very relevant to the classroom. It seemed that each article did incorporate an element of a narrative and several included anecdotes, screen shots of technology things, conversations with students/teachers, and many other 'data' types that were accepted in College English, CCC, and the Writing Center Journal. I also think that the entire journal being online and having an online version is very fitting given the nature and the content of the journal.
The abstracts were easy to read, but as Sarah pointed out--did not name drop as much as some of the others that we read in class (from other journals).
I ditto what Candice says, that the moves seemed more obvious to me after such in depth reading in the other journals. I think the articles use scholarship but weave in their own personal experience as well--so it is based on theory but very practical as well. Though I don't think I would publish in this journal, I think it would be important for me to look into them periodically to get ideas for my own teaching.
Post a Comment