blog for reading for 4/4/08

Readings for 4/14/08

These reading were all about the technology for writing and the technology of writing.

Some of the authors had great insight into the future of IT and computers.

The first article by Sullivan explored the “possible impact of publishing the visual page on writers, readers, classroom and curricular theories”. She identifies how the writing theorists at the time of her article had not embraced the computer. She reiterates their reservations and their advocacy. Some felt it was a “helpmate” others, like Ong, who felt that technology constantly remakes the way we communicate and even, think” (p 45). Some felt that computer composition was a threat to writing theory and pedagogy (p 46). I would say to that, not a threat, just a required change, like any new science or evidence. Technology has always changed society and how things are done. Consider how the invention of printing changed writing.

I liked how the author discussed the extra work of the writer. Word production has always been separated from word publication. Now the writer must deal with how the words on the page impact the meaning of the words. I thought about poets and how they have often used the placement of the words on the page for emphasis of the meaning. The author points out that traditionally, the writer interacts with the manuscript and the readers never see the evolution of the text. Depending on the writer, the reader may be able to contribute to the development of the text, if the writer chooses to make it public. The writing teacher can “look over the shoulder” of the student and watch how they compose and revise (see Harris and Wambeam) and the students can even give each other feedback if allowed to post to a discussion board.

On one hand authors can have a say over the layout of their text, the illustrations etc., unless the publisher has specific guidelines they must follow. In which case, this sounds like cost saving strategies. The writer has the choice of doing the visual work themselves or hiring a visual editor and layout specialist, which is what the publisher has done, traditionally. The writer now has access to a wider audience that might not find their book in the bookstore, but can be invited to read their book through the internet.

The second article, by Harris and Wambeam showed that a decade ago, they were looking at the impact of distant education; the advantages, the importance of community and the outcomes. I wonder what they think of it now, that almost every University has an on-line or distance education program. We are communicating/ exchanging ideas and information thorough a written medium. Writing has become extremely important and the genre and discourse community wider and more diverse. This was expressed in previous article, even the first day. Again, has this study helped determine if writing is an art or a technique to facilitate communication? Does the language of the conversation help develop the talent of the writer, no matter how informal?

The introduction of “guests” or outsiders into the discussions (by MOOS) demonstrated the capacity to generate new discourse communities and open the students to exposure to alternative social groups. We have watched the Internet develop into this very thing: A place for groups to meet, converse, share, debate, date, play games, compete, or stalk each other.

I think their experiment benefited two concepts 1) connecting teaching strategies in writing with theoretical concepts through the writing exchange of the students via technology and 2) the use of the internet for teaching (any subject).

As they mentioned, the success of the communication was only as good as the technology. Consider how that technology has changed to improve the availability of faster communication. It is still subject to failure, though, as I experienced many times in my distance education program. I spent last semester in Indiana. They have a lot of storms in Indiana and my internet link was via a satellite which is dependent on a clear path for the signal. Clouds, waving trees and rain can interfere with that signal. Wires get damaged in storms. So, like phone lines, my internet access could go down anytime and it did.

Did I appreciate the effect this type of learning had on my writing? I can’t say that I did. I consider who will read my text, and revise as I write. I guess I remember my grammar instruction. I look for ways to make the meaning clear, as it cannot be clarified as easily as when spoken (in communication). I always felt I was writing to an audience, different from (but including) the teacher.

The article by McGee and Ericsson made me laugh at first, as I had made a comment on the blog from the previous week about the MSGC. I called it an “authoritarian dictator” that interferes with my right to free text. I threatened to sue Bill Gates. I agree with the authors that this technology has been introduced without consult or question. I understand that it was designed as a helper, but I resent its interference and insistence that I not use fragments. I can’t help it that there are incomplete phrases in my references. Another authoritarian dictator known as MLA and APA requires that I include punctuation in incomplete phrases. I sometimes use short, descriptive phrases for emphasis and I don’t want to have to explain to “HAL” why I chose them.

Anyway, I thought the article brought up some interesting and important points that the MSGC has never been challenged to its theoretical underpinnings or the authority of its designers. (Remember, the “authority” that decried the lack of good grammar in English students had no expertise in writing). The examples that they gave about the construct of passive to active voice was interesting. I wish it could recognize when I type form instead of from or they instead of then. It recognizes the incorrect spelling but not incorrect use of a correctly spelled word. (Except when it was stuck in Canadian English mode and corrected my American spelling.) The system was designed with voice recognition in mind. I think it is, also, designed for business as that is where students are headed.

The authors discuss best practices in teaching writing. Whether it is better to view writing as an ecological/sociological construct that is dynamic and constantly be created and recreated by readers, writers and teachers and is decidedly social. We know that society changes as the technology changes. It seems odd that the concept of traditional rhetoric is still considered the best practice; because it follows the formula for a discipline even thought the precepts of this method of teaching has been shown to be ineffective since the 1880’s. My point being that if the MSGC is designed to be like traditional rhetoric as the writers state “ concerned with the prescriptive use of language and surface concerns of style, then I have to agree, it is an ineffective tool that can confuse a novice writer or a student that is not fluent or secure with SAE. This is where I see its greatest threat.

I was not aware that the MSGC can be turned off or customized (except to language of a country). Who interpreted the dictionaries of these languages?

I think that the writers have a good point; overall, but they were somewhat caustic in their criticism. I wonder if they work for that fruit company that makes computers.

The article by Shaun Slattery reminded me of the article by Eilola and Selber in their discussion on assemblage. In this article the author discusses technical writing of a document development company. The technical writers have no content expertise and through communications with subject experts from the companies for whom the technical writers are writing, they “assemble” the technical documents from various sources, such as e-mails, previous documents and many other sources. They make the work sound daunting. The question is how much original writing of texts or composition takes place? Many people are responsible for the finished product. It is a collaborative effort, based on other people’s original work.

I was especially impressed with the workload and the ability of the writers to go between so many different sources of information and tolerate the amount of distraction described. I get frantic when my phone rings when I am in the process of writing something. I do, however, have several pages of text or other source information that I may navigate between when I am developing a piece of text for a class. Sometimes it is my own, from another project and sometimes it is a reference I am using for resource to the topic. I am not fluid doing this, but it is easier than writing out all the quotes or references.

The article looks at the division of labor in the assemblage of technical writing and cautions that this may relegate technical writers to an assembly line of document development rather than rhetorical text development by individual writers. They illustrate how the fragmentation of this work makes text development more difficult, but with how they describe the amount of information from which they piece their “puzzles” together, one person could not handle the volume of information and even a small group would have difficulty developing a cohesive product.