logo
logo_banner

Schedule

This schedule is subject to change. Citation format erratic.

The items listed for that day are due by classtime and/or will be discussed in class. For example, by classtime on 8/23 you need to have signed up for Twitter and a blogging platform, read Lauer and Wysocki, blogged, and tweeted. WHEN Blog responses are required, please try to finish your post 24 hours before classtime so that people have time to read and respond.

week 1: overview and terminology
8/21

Introduction to class

8/23
  • sign up for twitter and a blogging platform of your choice (make sure it allows comments). might i suggest blogger or wordpress
  • READ: Lauer, Claire (2012). What's in a Name? The Anatomy of Defining New/Multi/Modal/Digital/Media Texts. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, 17(1). http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/17.1/inventio/lauer/index.html
  • READ: Wysocki, Anne Frances. "Opening New Media to Writing: Openings and Justifications." from Writing New Media. 1-41.
  • BLOG Post #1 (Groups A&B write): In short, what did you think about the readings, what stood out, and what do you want to talk about more in class? If you want a few questions to help focus your response: What name do you find you refer to non-alphabetic (non-words in a row) texts as? If you haven't yet had to do this in a pedagogical or theoretical sense, then which terms are currently appealing to you the most and why? How do you respond to Wysocki's argument and use of "new media"?
  • TWEET #1: Say hello to the class, use #twt591, post an image or video or website that you feel best summarizes your relationship with techology
week 2: Considerations, Groundwork, History
8/28
  • READ: Ohmann, Richard. "Literacy, Technology, and Monopoly Capital." College English. 47.7 (1985): 675-89.
  • READ: Foucault, Michel. "Panopticism." Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan, 1977. New York: Vintage Books, 1995. 195-228.
  • READ: Foucault, Michel. "The Eye of Power." Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. Ed. Colin Gordon. New York: Pantheon Books, 1980. 146-165.
  • BLOG Post #2 (GroupsA&B write AND respond. choose anywhere from 2-all of your peers to respond to): First, Foucault. What do you see as some of the central arguments he makes? How do you think these arguments might be relevant to the ways in which we teach w/ and about technology today? Second, Ohmann. Seventeen years have passed since this article was published. Do you think these issues are still relevant? If so, how? If not, why? And, do Foucault's notions of power and structures help you think through Ohmann's argument?
8/30
  • no class. read and prepare for Tuesday's class. and rest.
week 3: Know Your History, A Look Back at Digital Literacy Conversations
9/4

TWO CRITS: 1) Matt (Slatin), 2) Elizabeth (Cooper and Selfe)

  • READ: Lanham, Richard. "The Electric Word: Literary Study and the Digital Revolution." New Literary History. Vol. 20, No. 2, Technology, Models, and Literary Study (Winter, 1989), pp. 265-290.
  • READ: Slatin, John. "Reading Hypertext: Order and Coherence in a New Medium." College English. Vol. 52, No. 8 (Dec., 1990), pp. 870-883.
  • READ: Cooper, Marilyn M. and Cynthia L. Selfe. "Computer Conferences and Learning: Authority, Resistance, and Internally Persuasive Discourse." College English, Vol. 52, No. 8 (Dec., 1990), pp. 847-869.
  • READ: Hawisher, Gail E. and Cynthia L. Selfe. "The Rhetoric of Technology and the Electronic Writing Class." College Composition and Communication, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Feb., 1991), pp. 55-65.
  • BLOG Post #3 (GroupsA&B write AND respond. choose anywhere from 2-all of your peers to respond to): Today's readings are roughly chunked into two areas-- how the word/the text is changing via technology (Lanham and Slatin), and how to best teach given the change landscape of technology (Hawisher, Cooper, and Selfe). What other conections do you see between the articles? Taking these four articles as a snapshot of the late-1980s, early-1990s, what types of issues seemed relevant to scholars and teachers during this time? Do these issues seem dated, or are there things we can still learn looking back to these early conversations?
9/6

CRIT today from: 3) Adam (Selfe)

  • READ: Faigley, Lester. "Literacy after the Revolution." College Composition and Communication 48.1 (1997): 30-43.
  • READ: Selfe, Cynthia L. "Technology and Literacy: A Story about the Perils of Not Paying Attention." College Composition and Communication 50.3 (1999): 411-436.
  • READ: CCCC Position Statement on Teaching, Learning, and Assessing Writing in Digital Environments. Conference on College Composition and Communication. (2004).
  • BLOG Post #4 (Groups A&B write): Today's readings offer a glimpse into how CCCC (the governing body, if you will, of the field of composition), has approached and embraced digital literacy through appointing CCCC Chairs who speak to such issues and by having an official position statement on digital literacy. Describe the common themes, as well as any discrepencies, you notice in today's readings. Conclude by specifically addressing the 5 Assumptions from the CCCC Position Statement. Are these goals you think you can or should employ in your own classroom?
week 4: Digital Humanities, where do they fit? Do they remediate?
9/11
  • READ: Kirschenbaum, Matthew. "What Is Digital Humanities and What’s It Doing in English Departments?" ADE Bulletin. 150(2010): 55-61.
  • READ: Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. "The Humanities, Done Digitally." The Chronicle of Higher Education. 5/8/12.
  • READ: Bolter, Jay David and Richard Grusin. Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999. (read through pg 87)
  • BLOG Post #5 (for Group A. Group A write, Group B respond to at least 2 people): Draw as many connections as you can (or a few really smart ones) between the readings you've done in weeks 1-3 and the ideas put forth by Kirschenbaum and Fitzpatrick. Also, say just a wee bit about Bolter and Grusin. If you see connections between K and F and Bolter and Grusin, great. If not, consider how remediation might inform our discussions of "what it is we do" (thinking back to Lanham from last week).
9/13

two CRITs today: 4) Jenna (Self Section), 5) Lori Beth (part of media section)

  • READ: Bolter, Jay David and Richard Grusin. Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999. (read through pg 88-end)
  • BLOG Post #5 (for Group B. Group B write, Group A respond to at least 2 people): Summarize the best you can Bolter and Grusin's argument(s). How might their ideas of remediation inform your own teaching? How might their ideas inform English Studies as a whole? (think of Lanham from last week) Also, make any links you can between what they say and what we've read so far.
week 5: Working on your Timeline
9/18
  • Complete storyboard/timeline/mockup for the timeline webtext. That is, you should come to class having sketched out everything you want to include in the webtext itself. This is your roadmap and/or your outline, as it were. We will spend this week translating that mockup into an actual webtext.
  • Meet in the AML.
9/20
week 6: Timelines and building and presenting
9/25
  • Draft of timeline due for peer review.
  • Peer Review handout here! (do this in class. sorry i can't be there)
  • Meet in the AML.
9/27
week 7: Multimodality and its role in all this
10/2

CRITs today: 6) Jen O'Brien (Shipka), 7) Lindsay (NLG)

  • READ: New London Group. "A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures." Harvard Educational Review. 66.1(1996): 1-32.
  • READ: Shipka, Jody. Toward a Composition Made Whole. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh UP, 2011. (read through pg 82)
  • BLOG Post #6 (Groups A&B write, respond to at least 1 other classmate): Coming off of our timelines from last week, how would you position these readings within your timeline? Where do they fit? What issues do they connect up with? AND if that prompt doesn't grab you, then describe the connections you see between the NLG and Shipka, and then describe what you make of their arguments.
  • Tweet: If you had assigned the timeline assignment in your own class, what two criteria would you use to grade them with? (may be multiple tweets). because our hashtag is glitchy, use #twt591 and @kristinarola to be safe (and/or RT to me)
10/4
  • READ: Shipka, Jody. Toward a Composition Made Whole. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh UP, 2011. (read pp 83-end)
  • Come to class with idea/sketch of Multimodal Timeline
  • Shipka will be visiting our class via Skype. Come to class with 1 question (related to her book) that you want to ask her. If you can, tweet the question before Thursday morning so that she can think about them before class. use #twt591
week 8: Multimodality movement, how does it fit in?
10/9
10/11
week 9: ECrit as a method for refiguring education (and pubishing)
10/16

Remember, I'm out of town this week, so your posts are due by classtime, and your responses to posts are due by day's end (ideally, you could just USE classtime to craft your responses to the posts, but I'll leave that to you). I expect the writer of the post to engage with the feedback they are receiving. Respond to your responses in some capacity.

  • Read Chapters 1 and 2 of O'Gorman, Marcel. E-Crit: Digital Media, Critical Theory, and the Humanities. Toronto, Ontario: Toronto UP, 2007. Print.
  • BLOG Post #8 (Group A write, Group B respond to, at minumum, the person's name directly across from yours and the name below that. So, Jenna would respond to Aminah and Kerry; Amy to Elizaebeth and Jacob; Lindsay to Matt and Aminah, etc.... you can respond to more, just make sure to do these 2 for sure). As a responder, you should discuss your thougths on the writer's post, whether you're on board with them or not, why, and make any connections you can to the readings. As the WRITER of the post, you should write about these 2 things:
    • First, as O'Gorman tends to be a bit hard to get through, so summarize his arguments the best that you can. What is he saying? What is he arguing for? against? and why?
    • Second, choose two issues he raises that you either 1) really agree with and want to say more about (why do you agree? what fires you up about this? and how might this connect to what we've read so far in class), OR 2) take issue with and want to say more about (why do you take issue? what specifically? how does this connect up to other readings in class?) [[feel free to choose one idea you agree with and one you disagree with]]
10/18
  • Read Chapter 3 of O'Gorman, Marcel. E-Crit: Digital Media, Critical Theory, and the Humanities. Toronto, Ontario: Toronto UP, 2007. Print.
  • BLOG Post #9 (Group B write, Group A respond to, at minumum, the person's name directly across from yours and the name below that. see 10/16 for more info). As a responder, you should discuss your thougths on the writer's post, whether you're on board with them or not, why, and make any connections you can to the readings. As the WRITER of the post, you should write about these 2 things:
    • First, as O'Gorman tends to be a bit hard to get through, so summarize his arguments the best that you can. What is he saying? What is he arguing for? against? and why?
    • Second, choose two issues he raises that you either 1) really agree with and want to say more about (why do you agree? what fires you up about this? and how might this connect to what we've read so far in class), OR 2) take issue with and want to say more about (why do you take issue? what specifically? how does this connect up to other readings in class?) [[feel free to choose one idea you agree with and one you disagree with]]
week 10: Ecrit as a method for refiguing eduction and publishing
10/23

    Crits by: 8) Jacob (Chapter 4), 9) Kerry (Chapter 5)

  • Read Chapters 4 and 5 of O'Gorman, Marcel. E-Crit: Digital Media, Critical Theory, and the Humanities. Toronto, Ontario: Toronto UP, 2007. Print.
10/25
  • Class visit by David Parry.
  • Read Parry, David. "The Digital Humanities or a Digital Humanism." Debates in the Digital Humanities. Ed. Matthew K. Gold. UMinnesota Press. 2012. 429-437.
  • Watch Protecting the Internet Public. from Personal Democracy Forum 2012. June 11-12, 2012. New York City, NY.
  • Bring 2-3 questions for Parry. This is going to be an informal chat, time for Q&A, etc, so think about how you want to frame the discussion.
week 11: Whose body, whose pedagogy? Material considerations
10/30 Crit from:10) Ti (Banks)
  • READ Wysocki, Anne Frances. "Introduction: Into Between--On Composition in Mediation." Composing(Media)=Composing(Embodiment). Eds. Kristin L. Arola and Anne Frances Wysocki. Utah State UP. 2012. 1-22.
  • READ: Banks, Adam. "Oakland, The Word, and The Divide: How We All Missed the Moment." from Race, Rhetoric, and Technology: Searching for Higher Ground. NCTE Press. 2006. 11-46.
  • BLOG Post #9 (Group B blog, A respond to two of your peers. Spread the wealth!): This week's readings are meant to encourage you to think about whose bodies and experiences get included and excluded given the technologies we choose to incorporate into our classroms. That being said, what do you make of the ways Wysocki speaks about issues of materiality and embodiment? What do you think the heart of her argument is? And how does this (or does this) connect up with Banks' argument? And, what do you think? How do your experiences shape the ways you understand these issues?
11/1
  • READ: Selfe, Cynthia and Richard Selfe. "The Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones" College Composition and Communication 45.4 (Dec. 1994): 480-504.
  • READ: Arola, Kristin. "It's My Revolution: Learning to See the Mixedblood." Composing(Media)=Composing(Embodiment). Eds. Kristin L. Arola and Anne Frances Wysocki. Utah State UP. 2012. 213-226.
  • READ: McCorkle, Ben. "Whose Body?: Looking Critically at New Interface Designs." Composing(Media)=Composing(Embodiment). Eds. Kristin L. Arola and Anne Frances Wysocki. Utah State UP. 2012. 174-187.
  • BLOG Post #10 (Group A blog, B respond to two of your peers. Spread the wealth!): This week's readings are meant to encourage you to think about whose bodies and experiences get included and excluded given the technologies we choose to incorporate into our classroms. Today's readings look more specifically at how certain interfaces might encourage certain types of uses (debated not including my article, but think it provides a glimpse into how folks doing work into race, class, sexuality, disability, etc, can look at ways agency is played out online). Engage specifically with Selfe, Selfe, and McCorkle to address issues of the interface.Their arguments come 18 years apart. What connections do you see? Disconnections? How do your experiences shape the ways you understand issues of the interface? Are there interfaces that work wel for you? Why?
week 12: Practical implementations, pedagogy, theory, your classroom
11/6 CRIT by: 11) Aminah (Selfe, "Toward New Media Texts)
  • READ: Selfe, Cynthia. "Students Who Teach Us: A Case Study of a New Media Text Designer." from Writing New Media. 43-66.
  • READ: Selfe, Cynthia. "Toward New Media Texts: Taking Up the Challenges of Visual Literacy." from Writing New Media. 67-110.
  • READ: Sirc, Geoffrey. "Box Logic." from Writing New Media. 111-146
  • NO BLOGGING this week. Instead, just be thinking about how you might model your final project on these articles.
11/8 ONE CRIT SLOT available today choose an article!: 12) Amy (Wysocki)
  • READ: Wysocki, Anne Frances. "The Sticky Embrace of Beauty: On Some Formal Problems in Teaching about the Visual Aspects of Texts." from Writing New Media. 147-198.
  • READ: Johnson-Eilola, Johndan. "The Database and the Essay: Understanding Composition as Articulation." from Writing New Media. 199-236.
  • NO BLOGGING this week. Instead, just be thinking about how you might model your final project on these articles.
week 13:
11/13
  • flextime (I'll be away, so use this time to start in on those final projects, or simply give your brain a break so that you CAN start in on it!)
11/15
  • flextime (I'll be away, so use this time to start in on those final projects, or simply give your brain a break so that you CAN start in on it!)
week 14: Final Presentations
11/27

3 presentations (Ti, Matt,Jen)

{remember, 10-15 minute presentation with 5-10 minutes for questions. 20 minutes total}

11/29

3 presentations (Jenna, Elizabeth, Lori Beth)

{remember, 10-15 minute presentation with 5-10 minutes for questions. 20 minutes total}

week 15: Final Presentations
12/4

3 presentations (Jacob, Adam, Aminah)

{remember, 10-15 minute presentation with 5-10 minutes for questions. 20 minutes total}

12/6

3 presentations (Kerry, Amy, Lindsay)

{remember, 10-15 minute presentation with 5-10 minutes for questions. 20 minutes total}

 

 
logo_banner