col·lab·o·rate
intr.v. col·lab·o·rat·ed, col·lab·o·rat·ing, col·lab·o·rates
1. To work together, especially in a joint intellectual effort.
This article highlighted many of the benefits to collaborative learning efforts that are now popping up in several different venues on line. I think collaborative student-learning in the forms of group presentation and team-teaching can be highly effective. It encourages “the creative energy and decision-making power of groups of individuals to create content and arrive at pedagogical practices.” The claim for collaboration and the greater communal benefits it has to offer reminded me of the argument David Wells made in his video-essay on “authentic” rhetoric. He seems to be of a mindset similar to that of Moxley and Meehan, by thinking that this proliferation of digital media and increased accessibility to the WWW community presented a greater opportunity for collaboration and contribution to the rhetoric that is shaped in around/about a particular issue or discourse. Using collaboration as a social networking tool that facilitates communication and blurs the line between teacher and students that it can “move (us) away from the ‘teacher as examiner’” pedagogical approach, and “can lead to a greater sense of accountability on the part of the author.” I have mixed feelings about the concept of collaboration. While I think it is an important tool, I wonder if the “notion of the solitary writer” that is beginning to be challenged by the proliferation of these new collaborative writing projects is all in all a good thing. In terms of dispersing information and sharing ideas, I believe collaboration can be extremely beneficial and empowering. But I do not think that collaborative writing projects and presentations should begin to replace individual writing.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Response to 7/16 Readings
The Kairos article opened up discussion for an evolution in writing programs. Change is possible, but I believe it’s going to be difficult. One of the first questions the article posed was “would you see interactive websites that enable graduate students and other teaching faculty to revise and compose the curriculum?” The answer in my opinion is definitely not. Giving administrative power away so readily would upset the balance of the collegiate institution. As if the Pope would grant priests the power to legitimize abortion by a democratic vote.
Posing another question, the article asked whether social networking sites would be integrated into the curriculum or prohibited. Prohibited in what sense was unclear, however, as we have already experienced Facebook cannot be accessed on the City College campus. As a resource for information could it be used? Perhaps for a first person interview in the way email interviews are conducted I don’t see why that would not be allowed.
The assumption made by Lunsford and Ede who claimed that “collaborative learning theory has from its inception failed to challenge traditional concepts of radical individualism and ownership of ideas,” seems unjustified and unfortunately was not backed with a defense in the Kairos essay. I assume they meant collaborative learning was not replacing individualism in the English department, but why would it? Writing, as the Kairos article mentioned is a solitary activity (and I agree to a large extent it is). Writing however is an art, and requires collaboration to grow. Painters examine numerous periods, artists and mediums, and writing is the same way. In that sense, collaboration has always existed (with writing), and always will. It is solitary but at the same time a craft learned through trial, error, partnership, and collaboration, even if the collaboration may be one sided, for example one is reading Shakespeare and uses Romeo and Juliet as a template for a romance they are writing. To some this may be research, but with the nature of the word, ideas do not need to be spoken to be shared.
This brings up the Wikibook. First it was a great manual on writing no matter what level. I loved how it hammered the point that NOT WRITING is necessary to write. Writing is a process. This seemed to be the biggest point the Wiki was making and I completely agree. Writing takes research, thought, time, patience, notes, etc. Ideally you want every sentence to be perfect the first time around, but this is never the case. The ethos that the Wiki tried to instill were useful not only for college paper writing, but for fiction, and any other kind of writing.
It included many interesting tricks, including editing backwards, which I have never done, but will try now.
A quick anecdote, on the section about inductive logic which drifted into a religious argument on the human soul, I was reminded of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The Invisible Pink Unicorn became popular as an inside joke among atheists who concluded that God is just as believable as an Invisible Pink Unicorn. To prove their point, atheists worked out a series of arguments similar to the rationale for God’s existence which is included below.
"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them." — Steve Eley
Inductive logic at its finest.
- Travis
Response 7/16/09
Wonderful article! What I found to be most impressive were the many collaborative tools available to the unknown (me) just with a click.
I am quite resistant to the whole saga of “virtual community.” I find it to be intrusive and quite time consuming, but the article has shown how “social networking tools constitute a major new way to construct and disseminate knowledge,” and that, I’m for!
Take for instance the Wikipedia, which is constantly updated and reconstructed with new knowledge on an invariable basis. I can only imagine the benefits a project like that could bring to a classroom using a collaborative effort.
My only reluctance was the authors’ statement that “…society (and its educational systems) reinforces the solitary writer as the prototype…” I think rather “educational systems” are moving in the opposite direction; in that there are gradually transforming classroom especially on the tertiary level to a more virtual setting. All in all, I concur that a sense of community (virtual) can and will influence the learning environment.
I am quite resistant to the whole saga of “virtual community.” I find it to be intrusive and quite time consuming, but the article has shown how “social networking tools constitute a major new way to construct and disseminate knowledge,” and that, I’m for!
Take for instance the Wikipedia, which is constantly updated and reconstructed with new knowledge on an invariable basis. I can only imagine the benefits a project like that could bring to a classroom using a collaborative effort.
My only reluctance was the authors’ statement that “…society (and its educational systems) reinforces the solitary writer as the prototype…” I think rather “educational systems” are moving in the opposite direction; in that there are gradually transforming classroom especially on the tertiary level to a more virtual setting. All in all, I concur that a sense of community (virtual) can and will influence the learning environment.
twitter trouble, posting reading responses here.
Rhetoric and Composition was an article that while extolling some interesting points, was pretty much an exercise in inundating review of the steps and process of formulaic writing. We are exposed to the reasonable and comprehensive, yet none the less boring five step approach to writing
1. Focus
2. Development
3. Organization
4. Style
5. Conventions
For example, the Wikipedia page mentions, like the article on collaborations, the reality that many institutions and such do not support or encourage collaborative writing, however it does exist, and goes further to suggest ideas of how to manage and handle writing in a group (time management, breaking up the tasks, etc). This on many levels feels pedantic and garrulous but hey, a review is never a bad thing.
One part that I actually enjoyed was the section that dealt with what it meant to write in and for the humanities. “Writing in the humanities includes posing questions dealing with human values. The ultimate goal in writing in the humanities is to explain/share the human experience, to use writing as a tool to reflect upon life, and to tell how life should, or should not be lived.” I like this statement, all except for the part about telling people how or how not to live. As a writer, I feel strongly that the only people I can make comments to like that or control in that way are the characters that populate my works of fiction. I do not believe in the value or right of other to pass judgment on the lifestyles and habit of others, to each their own, live and let live, period.
So, needless to say, I was easily further annoyed when following parts of the Wikipedia page involved the inundating redundancy of conventions and formulas such as the parts of an essay; thesis, body, conclusion, etc. After forcing myself through some of these pages, I was rather bored and not stimulated, just being honest. However, as I mentioned, a review never hurts.
I did like the section that presented the debate about the pros and cons of the act of writing on the WEB and the way that people look on it as both a blessing and a curse. “The speed, utility, and flexibility of such writing is clearly a benefit. Yet, and perhaps as a result, formal writing style, developed voice, and common literary conventions seem, at times, to be edging gradually towards extinction.” This, a young writer to appreciates the works of great/traditional masters like Hardy and Faulkner, is hard for me to hear. The notion of this new WEB based, often collaborative writing, that I also love, usurping the place and prominence of the traditional forms of written expression and fiction that I love, almost makes me sick. The freedom of expression and personalization as well as the intimate nature of dialogue and conversation that is allowed by the WEB is awesome and powerful. However, the act of losing oneself in a story or beautifully crafted fictional world is also a meaningful experience and activity!!!! I hope there is a way for a balance.
In the Teachers Handbook section, there were some interesting lines that focused on the norm that writing is better understood as a process rather than a product. I think that this a very reasonable assertion as writing involves myriad stages and at each stage it is important to (if a student) get feedback and messages of encouragement. It is correct in the statement that ‘ineffective instruction is entirely focused on the ‘product’ that is the final draft submitted by the student. Students are given specified topics, such as abortion or capital punishment, and told to write an essay that establishes and defends their position on the issue.’ Writing is a process, much like life, and it has the same joys and sorrows and highs and lows that life does. It is important for writing to be taught at every stage and level rather than as a product with focus and importance applied on the final product only.
1. Focus
2. Development
3. Organization
4. Style
5. Conventions
For example, the Wikipedia page mentions, like the article on collaborations, the reality that many institutions and such do not support or encourage collaborative writing, however it does exist, and goes further to suggest ideas of how to manage and handle writing in a group (time management, breaking up the tasks, etc). This on many levels feels pedantic and garrulous but hey, a review is never a bad thing.
One part that I actually enjoyed was the section that dealt with what it meant to write in and for the humanities. “Writing in the humanities includes posing questions dealing with human values. The ultimate goal in writing in the humanities is to explain/share the human experience, to use writing as a tool to reflect upon life, and to tell how life should, or should not be lived.” I like this statement, all except for the part about telling people how or how not to live. As a writer, I feel strongly that the only people I can make comments to like that or control in that way are the characters that populate my works of fiction. I do not believe in the value or right of other to pass judgment on the lifestyles and habit of others, to each their own, live and let live, period.
So, needless to say, I was easily further annoyed when following parts of the Wikipedia page involved the inundating redundancy of conventions and formulas such as the parts of an essay; thesis, body, conclusion, etc. After forcing myself through some of these pages, I was rather bored and not stimulated, just being honest. However, as I mentioned, a review never hurts.
I did like the section that presented the debate about the pros and cons of the act of writing on the WEB and the way that people look on it as both a blessing and a curse. “The speed, utility, and flexibility of such writing is clearly a benefit. Yet, and perhaps as a result, formal writing style, developed voice, and common literary conventions seem, at times, to be edging gradually towards extinction.” This, a young writer to appreciates the works of great/traditional masters like Hardy and Faulkner, is hard for me to hear. The notion of this new WEB based, often collaborative writing, that I also love, usurping the place and prominence of the traditional forms of written expression and fiction that I love, almost makes me sick. The freedom of expression and personalization as well as the intimate nature of dialogue and conversation that is allowed by the WEB is awesome and powerful. However, the act of losing oneself in a story or beautifully crafted fictional world is also a meaningful experience and activity!!!! I hope there is a way for a balance.
In the Teachers Handbook section, there were some interesting lines that focused on the norm that writing is better understood as a process rather than a product. I think that this a very reasonable assertion as writing involves myriad stages and at each stage it is important to (if a student) get feedback and messages of encouragement. It is correct in the statement that ‘ineffective instruction is entirely focused on the ‘product’ that is the final draft submitted by the student. Students are given specified topics, such as abortion or capital punishment, and told to write an essay that establishes and defends their position on the issue.’ Writing is a process, much like life, and it has the same joys and sorrows and highs and lows that life does. It is important for writing to be taught at every stage and level rather than as a product with focus and importance applied on the final product only.
response to collaborations piece
(I AM HAVING SOME TROUBLE POSTING THIS RESPONSE TO MY TWITTER PAGE)
In regards to the piece on collaboration, what first struck me as interesting was reflecting on the institutionalized strangle hold that institutions of higher learning and academia hold on individual success; meaning that the desire for individual publishing of papers, books, etc is still hyper among professors and teaching professionals and that in turn the notion of individual accomplishment on a student level is so rampant that the association of Florida Governors is thinking of implementing standardized tests for college students. With the development of social networking sites and the changing nature of 'knowledge' coupled with the need for the mass sharing of news and information at a moments notice, demands a cohesive and well run network of sharing and contribution. This collective effort makes life in general much easier and the notion of teaching students how to actively participate in group process is instrumental in creating a framework for an accountable and responsible world citizen.
The article also mentions the Wikipedia argument and questions its merit as dependable information, but doesn't forget to mention that it is probably the best example of collaborative writing and therefore something to adknowledge. There was also mention of the colletive news site, Newsvine which is particularly cool (i checked it out) because the content and layout is controled by the readers. There is also a place for readers to contribute op-eds or stories of their own, and there always exists the chance that they will be picked up and posted on the site!Also focused on was the collaborative capacity of music and its cross polination powers across the world wide web, having individual recording made by band members and then sending them to one computer to be sampled, spliced and cut together. This made me think of Pandora which is a very cool site that helps suggest new music according to evaluations of the music you already listen to. There is a complicated process through which the computer seeks out new titles, musicians and bands that you may have an interest in, its a great way to keep up with developing sounds and learn about new groups.
This article mentions that many feel that collaboration is a direct threat to authorship and copyright which further reflects the strictly economic and financial interests some have in this arts and academia. The notion that knowledge is constructed collaboratively is very intense and steps on the toes of tradition and many main stream desires and interests; the individual success in arts and academia, book publication, etc. It further concludes that with the advent of social networking tools, today more than ever before, we have the ability to appy the innovative and progressive ideas of teachers and students.
I think that its safe to say that across all disciplines and mediums, from East to West and North to South, from America to Asia, the nature of collaboration, sharing, togetherness, represents the steps the world and her people must take in order to reach a point where mutual respect and interest drives the organized and fair exchange of ideas and information and creates the stages for peaceful negotiations and dealings well into the future. Hey, after all, to quote an overused mantra; SHARING IS CARING!!!
In regards to the piece on collaboration, what first struck me as interesting was reflecting on the institutionalized strangle hold that institutions of higher learning and academia hold on individual success; meaning that the desire for individual publishing of papers, books, etc is still hyper among professors and teaching professionals and that in turn the notion of individual accomplishment on a student level is so rampant that the association of Florida Governors is thinking of implementing standardized tests for college students. With the development of social networking sites and the changing nature of 'knowledge' coupled with the need for the mass sharing of news and information at a moments notice, demands a cohesive and well run network of sharing and contribution. This collective effort makes life in general much easier and the notion of teaching students how to actively participate in group process is instrumental in creating a framework for an accountable and responsible world citizen.
The article also mentions the Wikipedia argument and questions its merit as dependable information, but doesn't forget to mention that it is probably the best example of collaborative writing and therefore something to adknowledge. There was also mention of the colletive news site, Newsvine which is particularly cool (i checked it out) because the content and layout is controled by the readers. There is also a place for readers to contribute op-eds or stories of their own, and there always exists the chance that they will be picked up and posted on the site!Also focused on was the collaborative capacity of music and its cross polination powers across the world wide web, having individual recording made by band members and then sending them to one computer to be sampled, spliced and cut together. This made me think of Pandora which is a very cool site that helps suggest new music according to evaluations of the music you already listen to. There is a complicated process through which the computer seeks out new titles, musicians and bands that you may have an interest in, its a great way to keep up with developing sounds and learn about new groups.
This article mentions that many feel that collaboration is a direct threat to authorship and copyright which further reflects the strictly economic and financial interests some have in this arts and academia. The notion that knowledge is constructed collaboratively is very intense and steps on the toes of tradition and many main stream desires and interests; the individual success in arts and academia, book publication, etc. It further concludes that with the advent of social networking tools, today more than ever before, we have the ability to appy the innovative and progressive ideas of teachers and students.
I think that its safe to say that across all disciplines and mediums, from East to West and North to South, from America to Asia, the nature of collaboration, sharing, togetherness, represents the steps the world and her people must take in order to reach a point where mutual respect and interest drives the organized and fair exchange of ideas and information and creates the stages for peaceful negotiations and dealings well into the future. Hey, after all, to quote an overused mantra; SHARING IS CARING!!!
Response 7/16
Response 7/16
The piece on Rhetoric and Composition was very appealing and focused on one major theme of the class which is the external struggle of digital literacy, book vs. screen reading. The article presented both sides very clearly listing both the advantages and disadvantages of both sides. After reading the article I do believe that wikitext will be the way students across the nation received text book information. Text book publishers have been monopolizing the text book industry for so long, although access to written word has become greater, (Amazon, Barnes and noble) they still continue to charge astronomical prices for textbooks just because they re-arranged the chapters and redesigned the cover, recycling the same information, just as a way to charge a hundred dollars for a “new” edition, which in fact the only thing “new” about it is that you can pay double the price, rather opting for slightly cheaper older edition. Wow, I think I should have made a mockumentary on the text book industry for my final project
“Opponents to Wikipedia often cite its "anything goes" philosophy as its weakness, and indeed, Wikipedia is not free of errors”.
I do not believe that there has ever been a time in history where written word has rang to be infallible or inaccurate; the only difference is that readers of a Wikipedia text can be made of the inaccuracies sooner and change their thought processes based on this awareness.
Overall, I found the “Collaboration Literacy Authorship” piece to be very organized and well presented. If on-line textbooks were going to be similar to this piece I would have no problem following a Wikipedia text, this view point is very different from what I thought three weeks prior to this class.
The use of links and pictures to the page, gave me a strong sense of learning collaboration. I could imagine myself being a student at that UFC, this sense of connectedness is something that was achieved using a digital literacy forum. If I were just reading the assigned textbook, I do not if those sensibilities would be put into motion.
The piece on Rhetoric and Composition was very appealing and focused on one major theme of the class which is the external struggle of digital literacy, book vs. screen reading. The article presented both sides very clearly listing both the advantages and disadvantages of both sides. After reading the article I do believe that wikitext will be the way students across the nation received text book information. Text book publishers have been monopolizing the text book industry for so long, although access to written word has become greater, (Amazon, Barnes and noble) they still continue to charge astronomical prices for textbooks just because they re-arranged the chapters and redesigned the cover, recycling the same information, just as a way to charge a hundred dollars for a “new” edition, which in fact the only thing “new” about it is that you can pay double the price, rather opting for slightly cheaper older edition. Wow, I think I should have made a mockumentary on the text book industry for my final project
“Opponents to Wikipedia often cite its "anything goes" philosophy as its weakness, and indeed, Wikipedia is not free of errors”.
I do not believe that there has ever been a time in history where written word has rang to be infallible or inaccurate; the only difference is that readers of a Wikipedia text can be made of the inaccuracies sooner and change their thought processes based on this awareness.
Overall, I found the “Collaboration Literacy Authorship” piece to be very organized and well presented. If on-line textbooks were going to be similar to this piece I would have no problem following a Wikipedia text, this view point is very different from what I thought three weeks prior to this class.
The use of links and pictures to the page, gave me a strong sense of learning collaboration. I could imagine myself being a student at that UFC, this sense of connectedness is something that was achieved using a digital literacy forum. If I were just reading the assigned textbook, I do not if those sensibilities would be put into motion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
