Hey all, Okay, here is my follow-up response/part 3 of the assignment:
I would just like to address a couple of the ideas that Kari and Jessica came up with in their intial responses as to what should be done next in our small group.
First of all, I have to admit that when I wrote my email for part 2 of the assignment, I was also thinking more in terms of the writing center, which is what Kari said she was thinking of also. Who knows? Maybe I was thinking about Kari working in the writing center too! Anyways, now that we have established that Cynthia Bandish's group is working on a project dealing more with writing OUTSIDE of the classroom and we are focusing on writing IN the classroom, I feel a little more clear about what kind of ideas we should be coming up with. But like Kari said, once you are stuck in a particular kind of thinking, it is difficult to switch modes here. I am trying to think of some creative ideas as far as writing in the classroom but am not getting very far right now (could be that studying for that marketing test really HAS fried my brain!)
Well, to respond to something that Jeff was saying, I think that it might be a good idea to continue to investigate this whole MOO/MUD thing; that might be an interesting way to communicate within the classroom without necessarily being in the physical classroom, if you know what I mean. From what I've read, MOO virtual environments are object based, so if you read someone's paper and think he/she did a pretty good job, you could give them a virtual pat on the back! Or maybe a virtual frown if they didn't try very hard!
Okay, sorry, I am getting weird. Anyways, I will just reiterate that it might be worthwhile to test out some Daedalus-type software as well, as Jeff also mentioned in his email. It is hard to think in terms of these programs and virtual environments without ever having used them or been exposed to them at all. I feel like some hands-on experimentation might be just the thing that we would want to start looking in to. And if something doesn't work out, then it doesn't. We will learn from our "mistakes" at least as much as we will learn from our successes. Does that make sense?
I also liked some of Jessica's ideas about the webpage itself. I know what we are all talking about is probably more applicable to the Bandish group's website, but I can't help but wonder, isn't there any room for overlap among our groups? Sure, I understand that the point is to have smaller groups working on individual projects, but I don't think that we can avoid issues pertaining to the Bandish group because I feel like our projects are closely related. I don't suppose that we could share a website with them? Maybe that would be defeating the purpose of the whole program and making Peter mad, I don't know! But it seems to make more sense to me. We could have our section(s), and they could have theirs, but it would all be available on one easily accessible, user-friendly, simple-interfaced webpage. So I'm sorry if I am going way off in left field, but I just see this as making more sense.
Well, no matter what kind of website we eventually work on, I think Jess is absolutely right in saying that it should be as user-friendly as possible (spoken as a true marketing major, right?!). Even the suggestion of games and facts of the day or whatever is just the kind of thing that will draw visitors to the site and hopefully keep them coming back even when using the page isn't "assigned."
I guess that is all I can think of for now.
(no date)
My assignment was to examine the "Resources for Writing Instructors" web page. The URL is www.devry-phx.edu/Irnresrc/dowsc/instres.htm
According to the site creator, "This page is intended as a starting place for writing instructors who want to begin 'surfing the Net' to find resources for their courses. I am providing a list of 'starting points:' web pages that contain useful links to Internet resources."
This site contains an impressive list of categorized links (about forty-five of them!). The categories for the links listed on the page are: General Teaching Resources, Computers and Composition, Online Composition Journals, Online Syllabi, Writing Resources for Students and Teachers, Local Networking Systems for Writing Labs, Locating and Documenting Resources from the Internet, and Critical Thinking. You can imagine that narrowing down my search was a little tricky, but I found a few sites that contained some information that might prove useful to our Learning Circles Group.
By far the most interesting and informative page I found was through a link to the University of Texas at Austin (http://wwwnt.cwrl.utexas.edu/web/student.cfm?page=index). Apparently, UTA offers both classes and student technology resources in a program called Computer Writing and Research Lab (CWRL). The web pages for CWRL contain lists of the hardware and software available to students currently enrolled in CWRL sections and links to tutorials on a variety of topics including explaining some of the basics of writing HTML, using the multimedia equipment, and working with the MOO.
The lab resources link of the CWRL page is a section containing useful lists of CWRL hardware, software, and miscellaneous equipment available to CWRL users (students & faculty) . The multimedia tutorials link offers an online tutorial center featuring tutorials on screen shots, communicating with graphics, scanning images, creating text and images in Adobe Photoshop (v.5.5) and creating animated GIFs. The HTML resources section of CWRL features HTML tutorials, student FAQs, composing in HTML, web writing guidelines, introducing HTML into the classroom, and HTML templates.
Also available to CWRL users is a link for hypertext and hypermedia. Hypertext is nonlinear text that contains links to other texts. HyperMedia is a term used for hypertext that is not constrained to be text; it can include graphics, video and sound. The MU*environments (or TinyMUDs) link, offers information on MU's, of course! MU's are text-based virtual
And in response to what Kari found on her webpage, CWRL contains a link titled "Using Microsoft Word for Peer Reviewing." This page offers instructions for using the commenting features of MS Word to facilitate reviewing essays in CWRL classes. To me, this sounded similar to the peer editing opportunity at Texas Tech that Kari described in her e-mail. (Just as a side note: on the "Resources for Writing Instruction" webpage, there was also a link to Daedalus, the same software program that was implemented at Texas Tech.)
In addition to University of Texas at Austin, I checked a variety of the other links offered at "Resources for Writing Instructors." Unfortunately, a large number of these links were disabled and therefore unusable. However, I did find two other sites through "Resources…" which were somewhat helpful. Composition in Cyberspace (http://www.du.org/cybercomp.html) focuses on the use of MOOs (primarily a MOO called Diversity University MOO) and Internet discussion lists in English Composition teaching. This site itself was not really helpful except for the link list at the bottom of the page. Through these links, I was able to learn more about MU's/MUDs, including MOOs and MUSHs. MU's/MUDs began as multi-user dungeons used in interactive role-playing games. Renamed "multi-user domains," MU's/MUDs became a virtual "place" on the network where people could meet and collaborate on various projects. MOOs are MUDs that are internet accessible, text-mediated virtual environments that are well-suited for distance learning. MUSH stands for "Multi-User Shared Hallucination." Enough said.
I don't know if any of that information would be useful to us in our Learning Circle, but I did find it interesting and informative to learn about these virtual environments that exist at various campuses and organizations.
The only other related site that I found was from a Penn State Allentown link (http://cac.psu.edu/~cgk4/horizon.html). Described there was yet another use of the MOO virtual reality database, this time presented as a way for first-year composition classes to collaborate on writing assignments. I thought that maybe Dr. Jeff would find the questions listed on the site interesting and maybe related to the kinds of things we are searching for:
"Before deciding to use technology in an English composition course, most instructors would pose questions like these: How can we promote active learning in writing classes without spending a fortune (in both time and money) on commercial groupware? How can we create collaborative writing communities among our students using practical tools they can use beyond the first-year composition course? How can we increase our students' contact with a global community of writers that extends far past the walls of our own local writing labs? How can we access this global community seamlessly, regardless of distant platforms or software constraints?"
Okay, sorry that was so long! There really were quite a few links on my webpage! I hope this information makes sense and will be helpful to us.
-Lauren
(no date)
For the second time, I followed some of the links from Resources For Writing Instructors at www.devry-phx.edu/Irnresrc/dowsc/instres.htm. This time, I tried following some of the links that I had not tried before, under the category "Online Composition Journals."
The first link that looked somewhat interesting was under "Online Composition Journals" and it was called Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine (http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/current/toc.html). I followed the links and read some of the articles, but unfortunately they were not really relevant to our search for writing resources on the internet. Also, they were somewhat outdated because the most recent one is from 1999. The articles basically discussed web usability and technology and made almost no mention of writing resources at all, so I was a little disappointed that it wasn't really what we are looking for.
The next link under "Online Composition Journals" was a website called "Chreods"; an "electronic journal devoted to exploratory writing about education to provide a forum for practicing teachers of pupils and students of all ages engaged in research into their own practice." Although most of the articles seemed to focus primarily on mathematics, I did find a few that were about writing and sounded rather interesting. Unfortunately, all of these articles were located in back issues of the journal that were not available on the web.
I wasn't having very much luck in my research and at this point was feeling a little frustrated. So I thought that maybe it would be wiser to abandon the journals since I was getting nowhere and concentrate on following up on what I had researched last week about the MU's, MOOs, MUSH's, and other such entities. So I went back to the "Composition in Cyberspace" (http://www.du.org/cybercomp.html) page I had visited the week before to see what I could see.
Again I used the links listed on the bottom of the page because the information presented on the "Composition in Cyberspace" webpage itself did not seem very relevant or useful. So I just tried some of the links that I hadn't tried last week. Following the link "other courses using MOOs," I found a website listing courses from University of Virginia, Penn State, San Francisco State, and Salt Lake Community College.
The "MOO class" at University of Virginia focused on the theory and practice of hypertext-nonlinear text that contains links to other text. The class was evidently offered from 1995-96 and so was somewhat outdated.
The next link I checked out (at San Francisco State) was definitely more of a gold mine than any other link I had checked out previously for this assignment. http://charon.sfsu.edu is an extremely interesting site created and developed by (professor?) Arthur Chandler. In addition to the expected online syllabi, Chandler includes links to his other sites. Although they don't really deal with student writing much at all, they would still be of significant interest to English majors because of the literature information presented.
For example, there is a link to "The Tennyson Page," which includes a timeline of Tennyson's life, poems ("Demeter and Persephone," "The Lady of Shallot," "Tiresias," "Tithonus," and "Ulysses" were some I vaguely recognized), and a section devoted to "Idylls of the King." (You English majors and professor will have to verify for me whether these are all correct…I really have no idea what Tennyson wrote, only that he did write!)
For those interested in French literature, Chandler's website offers a link to both the maxims of Madame de Sablé (1599-1678) and to the maxims of Duc de la Rochefoucauld (1613-1680).
Interestingly enough, the "personal pages" section of Chandler's page had a link to "BayMOO," a MOO at San Francisco State that was developed at least in part by Chandler in the early 1990s. An all-text virtual reality on the Internet, Chandler's BayMOO is "a place where people come to use words, not only to express ideas and emotions, but to make things happen. The textworld of of BayMOO evokes the myth-world of fantasy, where words conjure actions…" He goes on to describe the community of BayMOO, which has over 1400 members from Africa, the Americas, Asia, Australia, and Europe-all of whom have never met each other. Very interesting.
There are a LOT of other interesting links on this site and they are worth being checked out, although time doesn't permit me. For example, I might be interested to later do some research on what Chandler calls "transvaluations." Apparently these are online discussions and evaluations of certain works of literature. The two links I spotted had to do with Tennyson's "Crossing the Bar" and Shakespeare's "Sonnet #73."
There is so much stuff there that I can't even begin to describe everything available. To give you just an idea of how interesting the page was to me: I was busy downloading some MP3s at the same time I was researching (I know, I'm bad) and finding this website made me totally forget I was even doing that! That never happens…Anyway, if you ever get bored and are interested in learning more about either MOOs or Literature, I recommend "Composition in Cyberspace" or Chandler's website.
Lauren
(no date)
"I'm not convinced [cyberspace is] bad, but I don't hear anyone much making that suggestion, and since I'm sure it can't be all good I feel that I need to make some trouble, " jokes author and self-professed "technophobe" Sven Birkerts. In a question-and-answer session with "Atlantic Monthly Online" magazine's Scott Stossel, Birkerts attempts to defend his position as a "traditionalist" while answering questions from numerous AOL users about his beliefs and his latest book, The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age.
Certainly, there are dangers involved in allowing more and more advanced technology into the niches of our lives. The unknown always has a danger factor simply because it is something that no one can accurately guess the implications of. It is unnerving to think that we as humans may "outsmart" ourselves, building computers so technologically advanced that they take over the world or something. Maybe that is getting a little off the point, but our society certainly has considered this possibility in popular movies such as The Matrix or A.I.
Birkerts, however, is more afraid that the technological evolution of computers has and will continue to make the written word (namely, books) more obsolete and obscure. There is something to be said for this viewpoint, because the lightning-fast rate of technological evolution in this day and age is rather frightening. In some ways, living in the computer age is like learning to drive a car. There is always the uncertainty or lack of confidence that causes many people to "ride the breaks;" surging ahead and then pulling back quickly when the progress gets too intense. And there is also a risk of getting into an accident. But we have never let that stop us from driving, have we?
Although I believe that Birkerts has made a valid point about possible dangers of the increasing technology and convenience-a point that should not be ignored--I am still personally inclined to favor more the opinions of the masses: those who would question Birkerts' sanity and perhaps even denounce him as an old-fashioned "technophobe" who can't stand to witness change in society and thus tries to stand in the way of progress. I would not be so harsh in my evaluation of this man and his opinions, but I also cannot help but think that he is more than a little strange. Have I let society delude me into thinking that computers are the most wonderful things in the world and should consume so much of my time? I don't think so. Does it seem likely that people will ignore books in increasing measures as more technologically advanced alternatives become available? Perhaps. Then again, we have asked this question many times before, when the record player, radio, and television were invented.
But my opinion differs from Birkerts' because I believe that the written word entails more than just something printed on a page, and I also think that if books ever disappear completely from this society, it won't be for an extremely long time. Personally, I don't think they will. And regardless of what anyone thinks, there is almost no doubt that it is too late to abandon our computers now. But maybe Birkerts is right in saying that there should always be someone who questions the status quos and norms of this world. Maybe that helps to keep us balanced. It certainly makes the world more interesting.
Part 2
This is definitely the more difficult part of the assignment in my mind. In my fifteen years of formal education, I have never before been asked by an instructor to offer my input as to what should be done in the course.
Even after reading over the syllabus to clarify our goals and objectives, I still struggle somewhat with the question, "What exactly is it that we are trying to do?" I know that we desire to integrate technology more into the college's English courses, but that is not very specific. The syllabus states "…it seems essential that we do collaborative, network-based writing as well as explore how others have done it." As far as I can tell, we have already begun to explore how others have integrated technology into their writing courses. But, "what should we do now?" is a very intimidating question.
I think that one of the most interesting things that we discussed was the idea used at Texas Tech: computer-assisted writing and peer editing. This is something that I think would be very helpful to use in composition courses, and perhaps we should look into it. I realize that we would probably need a software program in order to make this happen, and that is where things get tricky. I am not well-versed in what kinds of software are available for such a project, and because of my ignorance I will just mention the Daedalus software used at Texas Tech. Previously, Kari mentioned that this particular program offers a degree of anonymity to the student whose paper is peer edited. This, I think, is one of the most attractive advantages that a computer-assisted writing program would give BC students.
I think at this point we may want to start talking about exactly what we would like to have on our website. Maybe I'm way off-base here and everyone else is thinking something different, but when I envision a writing assistance webpage, I think of not only a comprehensive set of links leading to helpful sources, but also some important writing tips and resources for students on the page itself; maybe an index of grammatical symbols, a guide for citing sources, or examples of how to correct faulty grammar when using gerunds , participles, dangling modifiers, or whatever (!).
Another thought that comes to me is this: would there be any additional benefit to students if we were to consider implementing some form of online tutoring-either from the computer itself or from other students? Computer tutoring would require some kind of software, of course, and I am not knowledgeable about that. But I was wondering if there would be some way to provide writing help online, student-to-student. Sounds like peer editing, I know, but I am thinking more of someone knowledgeable working online expressly to help students rather than just having someone in your class read your paper. I don't know, maybe there is no real distinction between this and peer editing, but I think it is something to consider. We can talk anonymously to strangers through programs such as AOL instant messenger, so couldn't we have a tutor for students submitting work or asking questions anonymously? Just a thought.
Well, I think I may be confusing myself more than I am helping anyone
else! But I hope this answers your questions at least somewhat, Jeff.
(10/1/01)
On the Daedalus website, I didn't think that some of the "benefits" offered by the software provided anything astronomically different than what is already available on programs such as Microsoft Word or Internet features such as email, Internet research or instant messenger . However, this could just be because I was only able to give the site a cursory once-over. I think that with some more in-depth research I might be able to find more advantages to having a program like Daedalus at Bluffton. One thing I did find interesting on their site was the BiblioCite module available from Daedalus Integrated Writing Environment (DIWE). BiblioCite "prompts writers to record bibliographic entries and maintains them in a database of sources. It generates a Works Cited page in MLA style or a References Page in APA style. " That sounded interesting; kind of like what we were talking about before when we mentioned having a style guide link on a webpage.
On the Norton Connect website, I was especially interested by the blue and red-buttoned "hot spots," which can be clicked on to view students' comments about another student's paper. I think that seems like an innovative way of viewing a student's paper; first, from the author's original perspective; and secondly, from the perspectives of other students, easily accessible by clicking a button. And the comments are situated exactly where they are applicable. In other words, a comment is inserted directly after the sentence that the comment describes. The software seems especially beneficial for faculty members, although I could also see potential benefits for students. And, from what I observed after my brief perusal of the site, the program is relatively inexpensive also ($20 for 12 months). I would like to research both of these sites more thoroughly when I have a little more time.
-Lauren