The viewing is scheduled for 3/4/2009 at 5:30; however, I erred in the room number. The room is 306, not 310. Sorry, I get the rooms mixed up. Nevertheless, all is a "go" for Wednesday. Feel free to bring food if you wish, provided we clean up after ourselves.
To Jake, With "I Like You A Lot (but I need to see other people)"
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Heidegger and Smith; Some Notes
I have some observations about Smith’s book that I didn’t want to bog down the class with tonight but I thought could go on here. Some parallel studies I am conducting on Being and Time have striking relevance to a few of Smith’s major tenets.
First off, Smith’s “prediction” in reading is identical to Heidegger’s “futurity”. Smith’s insistence on prediction as a habit of mind is no less important to consciousness for Heidegger. Futurity, (orientation of human consciousness toward defining itself in terms of the future) is a component of what makes human consciousness unique: according to Heidegger, our consciousness is such that it must take a stand on itself. Only for humans is existence an issue; which is a condition founded on futurity, on the constant “towardness” of consciousness; and therefore also of reading.
Another point I thought relevant was the relationship of Smith’s “task schema” to such futurity in reading; and this goes hand-in-hand with some of the concepts we studied in “Literacy” last semester, particularly in the definitions of literacy as not simply the ability to encode and decode texts; but also to include an awareness of the function of language. These are important concepts, I think, because they refer again to fundamental aspects of consciousness that are distilled in reading. We have “computer-like” functions, program like scripts that we enact when we read. Certain encodings like “Once upon a time. . .”; or grammatical patterns like the “Either x or y; neither z, nor q,” automatically prepare us to receive certain types of information; other scripts, like what we say to a waiter at a restaurant, or how to read salutations in a letter, these are all task schema. As Megan pointed out, Chomsky-school linguists and cognitive scientists since the birth of the computer age have attempted to describe the whole of human behavior in terms of such task schema, and simultaneously program computers to be able to function as people. According to phenomenologists; the failure of the cognitive paradigm results from the computers’ lack of “awareness”: their inability to perceive things in relation to what Heidegger would call a totality of significance. In terms of Smith’s model of reading this would be analogous to the global level of prediction or expectation or Rosenblatt’s stances. Task schema are how we cope with the world, and they are how we begin to inquire in a more conscious way; but such coping always occurs in relation to a totality; and inquiry always occurs in relation to an awareness of totality. It is this totality of significance which amounts to something like an awareness of the world at large, that is not programmable.
First off, Smith’s “prediction” in reading is identical to Heidegger’s “futurity”. Smith’s insistence on prediction as a habit of mind is no less important to consciousness for Heidegger. Futurity, (orientation of human consciousness toward defining itself in terms of the future) is a component of what makes human consciousness unique: according to Heidegger, our consciousness is such that it must take a stand on itself. Only for humans is existence an issue; which is a condition founded on futurity, on the constant “towardness” of consciousness; and therefore also of reading.
Another point I thought relevant was the relationship of Smith’s “task schema” to such futurity in reading; and this goes hand-in-hand with some of the concepts we studied in “Literacy” last semester, particularly in the definitions of literacy as not simply the ability to encode and decode texts; but also to include an awareness of the function of language. These are important concepts, I think, because they refer again to fundamental aspects of consciousness that are distilled in reading. We have “computer-like” functions, program like scripts that we enact when we read. Certain encodings like “Once upon a time. . .”; or grammatical patterns like the “Either x or y; neither z, nor q,” automatically prepare us to receive certain types of information; other scripts, like what we say to a waiter at a restaurant, or how to read salutations in a letter, these are all task schema. As Megan pointed out, Chomsky-school linguists and cognitive scientists since the birth of the computer age have attempted to describe the whole of human behavior in terms of such task schema, and simultaneously program computers to be able to function as people. According to phenomenologists; the failure of the cognitive paradigm results from the computers’ lack of “awareness”: their inability to perceive things in relation to what Heidegger would call a totality of significance. In terms of Smith’s model of reading this would be analogous to the global level of prediction or expectation or Rosenblatt’s stances. Task schema are how we cope with the world, and they are how we begin to inquire in a more conscious way; but such coping always occurs in relation to a totality; and inquiry always occurs in relation to an awareness of totality. It is this totality of significance which amounts to something like an awareness of the world at large, that is not programmable.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Edwards- Reading Improvement
Jake Edwards
Feb. 17, 2009
Engl. 6973: Dr. Jolliffe
Journal Review: Reading Improvement
Reading Improvement is an academic journal published by Project Innovation, Inc. — a private organization that operates out of Mobile, AL. The journal is published quarterly, and it focuses on aspects of “improving” reading, specifically in academic spheres. Reading Improvement is a printed journal that remains in publication; however, it is accessible through the web via Ebsco. Currently, there are 45 volumes of the journal, and it is paginated by volume.
The journal focuses on different aspects of reading improvement. According to the abstract, the journal favors “manuscripts that give promist (sic)[1] to better understanding the teaching of reading and for improving the reading process” (www.projectinnovation.biz/ri.html). Each issue usually consists of between four and five peer-reviewed articles. the articles focused on parental influence in reading, achievement gaps in classroom reading, and designing strategies for understanding meaning. The average length of each article is about ten (10) pages, and many of the articles include graphics in the form of charts and graphs.
The journal publishes articles written primarily by PhD level researchers, but the articles are intended for an audience of K-12 teachers and curriculum specialists. This audience, which Stephen North refers to as “Practitioners,” stands to benefit from various case studies that comprise a body of lore for teachers to reference. Two of these articles were reflective pieces written by practicing teachers. Several of the articles, however, were quantitative descriptive analyses written by what North calls “Experimentalists.” These articles are written in a more scientific structure that are usually broken down into “Literature Review,” “Methodology,” and “Data Analysis” sub-headings. The studies rely on previous research and empirical data.
Reading Improvement poses several concerns. First, practitioners don’t generally read academic journals. North is largely correct when he states that “practitioners know that the best course is usually to stat with the tried and true” (37). K-12 teachers have precious little time to read academic journals; many of them are simply trying to “stay afloat” in the “survival stage.” As a result, many of the articles from fellow practitioners get lost amid the more scientific-written articles. It seems as if the journal is directed more towards curriculum specialists than teachers. However, this leads to the second problem: curriculum instructors are bound to departmental benchmarks that vary from state to state. Curriculum specialists may be attracted to the quantitative data in the research studies, but the gap between practitioner and theorist remains. Specialists may be hesitant to put too much faith in a study that reflects only a small sample of specific students (i.e. ethnographic study, samples, case studies). Finally, the title of the journal alone draws the question “what constitutes reading improvement?” Some of the articles clarified that improvement constituted bridging learning gaps, benefits of small group instruction vs. whole class instruction, and “Psychometric Properties and Correlates of the Robert Morris Attention Scale.” Each of these articles identified what the reading “problem” was and how to go about identifying or alleviating the “problem.” But some of the articles never fully explain the criteria upon which reading assessment is based. Instead, the writers seem to presume that students are deficient in reading skills without ever offering an explanation. Reading Improvement a relevant source of information for college-level academics, but it could be written more clearly for its intended audience.
[1] I found it interesting that a journal dedicated to correcting problems with reading would have a typo- misspelling on the website.
Feb. 17, 2009
Engl. 6973: Dr. Jolliffe
Journal Review: Reading Improvement
Reading Improvement is an academic journal published by Project Innovation, Inc. — a private organization that operates out of Mobile, AL. The journal is published quarterly, and it focuses on aspects of “improving” reading, specifically in academic spheres. Reading Improvement is a printed journal that remains in publication; however, it is accessible through the web via Ebsco. Currently, there are 45 volumes of the journal, and it is paginated by volume.
The journal focuses on different aspects of reading improvement. According to the abstract, the journal favors “manuscripts that give promist (sic)[1] to better understanding the teaching of reading and for improving the reading process” (www.projectinnovation.biz/ri.html). Each issue usually consists of between four and five peer-reviewed articles. the articles focused on parental influence in reading, achievement gaps in classroom reading, and designing strategies for understanding meaning. The average length of each article is about ten (10) pages, and many of the articles include graphics in the form of charts and graphs.
The journal publishes articles written primarily by PhD level researchers, but the articles are intended for an audience of K-12 teachers and curriculum specialists. This audience, which Stephen North refers to as “Practitioners,” stands to benefit from various case studies that comprise a body of lore for teachers to reference. Two of these articles were reflective pieces written by practicing teachers. Several of the articles, however, were quantitative descriptive analyses written by what North calls “Experimentalists.” These articles are written in a more scientific structure that are usually broken down into “Literature Review,” “Methodology,” and “Data Analysis” sub-headings. The studies rely on previous research and empirical data.
Reading Improvement poses several concerns. First, practitioners don’t generally read academic journals. North is largely correct when he states that “practitioners know that the best course is usually to stat with the tried and true” (37). K-12 teachers have precious little time to read academic journals; many of them are simply trying to “stay afloat” in the “survival stage.” As a result, many of the articles from fellow practitioners get lost amid the more scientific-written articles. It seems as if the journal is directed more towards curriculum specialists than teachers. However, this leads to the second problem: curriculum instructors are bound to departmental benchmarks that vary from state to state. Curriculum specialists may be attracted to the quantitative data in the research studies, but the gap between practitioner and theorist remains. Specialists may be hesitant to put too much faith in a study that reflects only a small sample of specific students (i.e. ethnographic study, samples, case studies). Finally, the title of the journal alone draws the question “what constitutes reading improvement?” Some of the articles clarified that improvement constituted bridging learning gaps, benefits of small group instruction vs. whole class instruction, and “Psychometric Properties and Correlates of the Robert Morris Attention Scale.” Each of these articles identified what the reading “problem” was and how to go about identifying or alleviating the “problem.” But some of the articles never fully explain the criteria upon which reading assessment is based. Instead, the writers seem to presume that students are deficient in reading skills without ever offering an explanation. Reading Improvement a relevant source of information for college-level academics, but it could be written more clearly for its intended audience.
[1] I found it interesting that a journal dedicated to correcting problems with reading would have a typo- misspelling on the website.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Reading & Drinking
This blog entry from the NY Times seems relevant to our class:
http://proof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/under-the-literary-influence/?ref=opinion
http://proof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/under-the-literary-influence/?ref=opinion
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
The Reading Teacher
Jeannie Waller
The Reading Teacher is a peer reviewed publication that publishes articles relating to the interests of teachers that teach children up to age twelve to read. The Reading Teacher is an online and print publication and is published eight times a year from September to May. This publication focuses on the use of research in class room practice and helping the struggling readers succeed. In addition, the topics range from theoretical to practical approaches aimed at improving classroom technique.
Jeannie Waller
The Reading Teacher is a peer reviewed publication that publishes articles relating to the interests of teachers that teach children up to age twelve to read. The Reading Teacher is an online and print publication and is published eight times a year from September to May. This publication focuses on the use of research in class room practice and helping the struggling readers succeed. In addition, the topics range from theoretical to practical approaches aimed at improving classroom technique.
This publication publishes articles written by reading professionals for reading professionals, which makes it a must for those individuals who are directly involved in teaching literacy skills. In addition, articles written by teachers of readers offer practical ideas, contemporary information in research, critical issues in the field, reviews involving children’s literature, and how to apply reading information to the classroom.
In order to be considered for possible publication, you must submit a 500 word abstract of your article. The editor asks that the submitter read several of the most current publications in order to gauge the types of articles needed for this readership. There are also guidelines that ask for those articles that pertain directly to classroom practice or studies that will benefit those in the reading industry.
The February 2009 publication, which is one that I reviewed, has been broken into three parts: the first parts, deals with the young reader and what can be done to insure academic success. The authors of the article, “Academic Resilience and Reading: Building Successful Readers” suggest that in addition to looking at the cognitive patterns of young children, the socioemotional development should be considered. This part of this journal addresses the beginning reader and those aspects or factors that influence the acquisition of reading skills. The authors offer advice on how to insure success and give guidelines in determining the emotional development of the child. In looking at some of the previous journals, it seemed that the structure and practices of teaching reading are the most crucial topics.
The last part of the journal considers the types of literacy skills. For instance, the beginner reader is examined and the questions arise how the state is either failing or succeeding at teaching inexperienced readers to read and comprehend like an experienced reader. Anthony J. Applegate, Mary DeKonty; McGeehan, Catherine M.; Pinto&, Catherine M.; Kong, Ailing in their article, “The Assessment of Thoughtful Literacy in NAEP: Why The States Aren’t Measuring Up,” concludes that the actual testing of reading comprehension is lacking; therefore, something needs to be done in order to insure more precise testing for more precise results. Hence, this month’s publication attacks the questions concerning when and what and how we are teaching reading and is it enough? This article, for instance, follows the article that addresses the socioemotional development of children and its relationship to learning to read. The theme of February’s publication centered on when children are ready to read, and are we teaching them to read, and are we providing them with appropriate testing material that adequately reflects what they know. While I understand that the reading teacher would need to know these ideas, it seems that the focus of this journal is a little narrow sighted.
In addition to the section on acquiring reading skills and the section on sharpening those skills, there is a section of reviews of children’s literature. I found this section covering a broad range of reading materials for both the teachers of children and the children. In addition, there is ample opportunity for the teacher to learn how to present the books and how to engage the students and their parents.
This journal offers a wide variety of subject matter relating to reading that, I think, is useful for the elementary school teachers. In addition, I can see where it is helpful in problem solving and practical application. The journal’s graphics reflects the themes of each publication, and they are bright and cheerful, representing what I think an elementary school educator might find aesthetically pleasing.
Review of Assessing Writing
As its title suggests, Assessing Writing (AW) is a forum for academic discussion of the theory and practice of writing assessment. It addresses an international, English speaking audience of writing specialists, including teachers and researchers. It is not interactive. The journal's emphasis on quantitative and mixed methodologies reflects the influence of its publisher, Elsevier, a 129-year-old Dutch publishing house specializing in scientific, technical, and medical information. Online institutional access to the journal is available through ScienceDirect; individuals may subscribe to the journal for $56 US. Rated a category B journal by the European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH), AW is published three times each year. My review of AW is based on its 2008 issues, which are dominated by four concerns: high-stakes testing, the value and limits of empirical evaluation, the role of technology in assessment, and L2 learners' experiences with assessment. AW's definition of its own scope and focus is remarkably broad, even for a niche as apparently finite as assessment. According to Elsevier's website:
The journal focuses on all stages of the writing assessment process, including needs evaluation, assessment creation, implementation, and validation, and test development; it aims to value all perspectives on writing assessment as process, product and politics …The scope of the journal is wide, and embraces all work in the field at all age levels, in large-scale (international, national and state) as well as classroom, educational and non-educational institutional contexts, writing and programme evaluation, writing and critical literacy, and the role of technology in the assessment of writing.
In some ways, the journal lives up to this definition. Its articles examine writing assessments from various perspectives: Liz Hamp-Lyons's editorial at the beginning of issue 13.1 discusses educators' experience via a discussion of the disparity between contributors' consensus that a "technological, humanistic, political, and ethical" generation of assessment has arrived and the lived reality of educators at the National Council on Measurement and Statistics (NCMS) who work under pressure from No Child Left Behind (2); Lee Hee-Kyung's contribution to 13.2 examines students' perceived familiarity with prompts; and Anthony Petruzzi's highly theoretical article in 13.3 speaks to researchers, interrogating the persistence of the "neo-empiricist" dream of a methodology that will yield "consistent, reliable, and universal" (221) meaning and suggesting a shift toward a view of the humanities more in keeping with Heideggerian hermeneutics. Because it speaks to many different audiences about both practical and theoretical concerns, AW facilitates meaningful dialogue throughout the field of assessment.
AW also fulfills its promise to address institutions of various size and the ever-increasing role of technology in writing assessment. A comparison of Ling He and Ling Shi's contribution to 13.2 with Atushi Iida's article in 13.3 illustrates the diversity in the sizes of institutions that contributors study. He and Shi's "ESL students' perceptions and experiences of the standardized English writing tests" explores 16 Chinese and Taiwanese students' experiences with the TOEFL Test of Written English (TWE) and the Canadian English Language Proficiency Index (LPI) in a Canadian university; it analyzes assessment by Educational Testing Services (ETS), a multinational non-profit organization. Iida's "Poetry writing as expressive pedagogy in an EFL context: Identifying possible assessment tools for haiku poetry in EFL freshman college writing" outlines a method for assessing expressive writing in a much smaller context: the college classroom. Examples of AW's commitment to exploring the role of technology in writing assessment include "Electronic scoring of essays: Does topic matter?" in which Cindy L. James investigates the relative impact of prompt content on male and female and L1 and L2 respondents, and "Keyboarding compared with handwriting on a high-stakes writing assessment: Student choice of composing medium, raters' perceptions, and test quality," in which Carl Whithaus, Scott B. Harrison, and Jeb Midyette conclude that high-stakes testing environments should offer respondents the opportunity to choose a composing medium. AW's 2008 issues expose readers to the challenges faced by teachers, researchers, and other assessment professionals in large and small institutions; they focus particularly on challenges involving technology and standardized tests.
However, a lack of material addressing readers and writers outside secondary and post-secondary educational contexts tempers the journal's success. None of the issues of AW that I read include any discussion of non-educational institutional contexts. The articles studied college students almost exclusively, which means that they address few learners under the age of sixteen or over the age of forty. Replacing the journal's stated concern with institutional and age diversity is a pronounced, perhaps purposefully unstated emphasis on ESL readers and writers. This emphasis may be an effort to appeal to an international audience, but it may also represent an implied statement about the ubiquity of the multilingual classroom: serving L2 (and L3 and L4) readers and writers is the heart of language pedagogy and assessment, not a secondary concern.
Works Cited
Elsevier. 2009. 15 Feb. 2009 <http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/homepage.cws_home>.
Hamp-Lyons, Liz, ed. Assessing Writing: An International Journal. 13.1 (2008).
Hamp-Lyons, Liz, ed. Assessing Writing: An International Journal. 13.2 (2008).
Hamp-Lyons, Liz, ed. Assessing Writing: An International Journal. 13.3 (2008).
Reading and Writing Quarterly- Seawright
by Leslie Seawright
I reviewed three issues of the Reading and Writing Quarterly Journal, one from each of the last three years. The journal is produced four times a year and all issues since 1997 are available online through the
Most articles are either direct experiments or a review of the current and past research in order to derive implications and suggestions for teaching. The articles are academic in nature, ignoring lore or “storytelling” from the classroom. The authors go to great lengths to show they are well-read by listing several other theorists and articles in their own pieces. The bibliographies of all the articles I reviewed would be great resources for any student/researcher looking to do work in literacy. Each journal issue is centered on one main literacy topic; the three I reviewed included vocabulary skills, reading mathematics and its ties to more conventional reading, and tutoring for better reading and writing. Within these three issues I found several of the topics discussed in our class. From Jul-Sep2005, Vol. 21 Issue 3 an article described Dual Coding Theory and how it affected the teaching of sight words with flash cards for young learners. The author argued that children should be shown only words, not pictures, on flash cards. Another article in that same issue demonstrated that Shared Storybook Reading could build vocabulary and present more challenging novelistic ideas to students that can not yet read independently or at least, can’t read at the shared level independently.
In the Apr 2007, Vol. 23 Issue 2 the idea of what can be “read” was taken up. The issue dealt entirely with reading mathematics and math assignments. We have discussed in class the idea of what can be “read” several times, and I was delighted to see a journal devote an entire issue to a topic seemingly (but not really so) out of its realm.
It would seem that the pedagogical nature of the journal would suggest a clear audience; however, I found the articles to be too broadly scoped for an elementary teacher and too narrowly designed for the graduate teacher/researcher. While many articles review current theories on reading and writing approaches, there are very few pedagogical implications in the “discussion” sections of these articles. Likewise, the more experiment based articles seldom condone putting their method in place based upon their research or throwing out old ideas based on their new discoveries. This is common in all academic journals, I know, but I did expect to see a bit more of a suggestive nature in this journal since it claims to “provide direction” for the teaching of students.
I also found the age of most of the subjects a limiting audience factor. Most of the experiments were with subjects in elementary school. Perhaps literacy specialists and the like are reading these articles, but I doubt that any other “normal” elementary teacher is delving into an academic journal for their teaching points. This focus on younger subjects also left me and perhaps other graduate student researchers with little to hang my hat on, so to speak. I didn’t feel I could replicate many of the experiments or put into practice many of the suggestions found in the articles, although there must be others that use the findings in their own research or in the development of other theories.
The journal doesn’t appear to be interactive. While it is available online, the actual journal itself is not, and I could find no blog or comment site online for the journal. It appears the Reading and Writing Quarterly is devoted to developing dialogue through its own publication and interaction is limited to the publication of articles it endorses.
:// Reading Matters: Linking Literature to a Hypertextual World
Joel Blair
Dr. David Jolliffe
Seminar in Rhetoric, Composition, and Literacy
17 February 2009
:// Reading Matters: Linking Literature
to a Hypertextual World
:// Reading Matters is a journal dedicated to exploring language through emerging opportunities in technology. From its inception, RM has been dedicated to the aesthetic possibilities available through the combination of literature and technology. This journal seeks to create and illuminate little-known opportunities that have come about in the past fifteen years. The magazine attempts to adhere to new rules and old rules alike. These rules often seem contradictory or muddled, but the goal of RM is to clearly define the connection between the two in today’s world.
://Reading Matters is a product of George Mason University’s New Media Group in English. Each issue handles a certain theme, ranging from poetry on the Internet, to the influence visual stimuli has on culture. Ten issues of the journal are currently available for free at http://englishmatters.gmu.edu/. It appears the journal was discontinued sometime in 2004, soon after the publication of the tenth issue. However, this journal still offers a unique look at scholarship’s potential through technology, while providing answers to many questions about the future of scholarship.
EM creates a common ground for authors, students, scholars, artists, and teachers. Many of the articles are from faculty and students at George Mason. The articles appeal to scholars with some technological experience, while at the same time providing a place where anyone can learn about new opportunities emerging on the Internet.
Because each issue focuses on a different theme of scholarship and technology, the subjects of the articles are extremely varied. In issue 1, a great deal of time is spent exploring the power the Internet has in providing poetry to the world. This ability to self-publish one’s work then leads to ideas about introducing visual media, hypertext, or even sounds to the traditional format of literature. The editors assume that these avenues of possibility will eventually lend themselves to creating a new form of literature based on the open-endedness of hypertextuality.
These kinds of connections, between traditional forms of paper based scholarship and new areas of digital creations, are the very thing that EM seeks to explain. It is evident they have received a good deal of backlash from traditionalists seeking to discredit their work before it has evolved to a state of complete clarification. A great deal of time in each issue is spent comparing old forms to new in an attempt to show the reader the very real possibilities of the future.
Each issue is uniquely separated into appropriate sections depending on the subject matter. The most common form they follow is an exhibit section showcasing the work of a scholar or artist that pertains to the current theme. Next, they will have an essay section in which they discuss the connections or consequences this theme will have upon the digital world. Often, an interview with a person that does work relating to the theme ends the issue. In this way, they are able to approach a theme from the perspective of an artist, a scholar, and an influential person in the field.
Each issue also has a “Related Issue” section. This section provides links to other websites or works pertaining to the theme, modules that help teachers creates lessons based on the ideas found in the magazine, media files of artists’ works, a calendar displaying opportunities for people to experience these subjects in a different environment, and a list of contributors for each issue. The modules are a very useful resource for teachers that are unsure about ways to approach new media in a classroom setting. The media files are far more interesting. These are audio or video files of artists or lecturers that relate directly to the theme.
One of the most interesting things on the entire website is in the Module section. It is called Plum Flowers. It is a computer program based on Todd Pitt’s paratactic poem about the Nanking Massacre, Plum Flowers-I. This “Pseudorandom Poem Generator” rearranges lines from the original poem to “create” a poem at the will of the viewer. There are fifty combinations overall and even though it might seem to be a cheap trick, it is actually an interesting exercise in the interchangeability of language.
:// English Matters is an interesting and insightful journal full of practical theories relating the world of reading and writing in the future. Even though it is not as polished as Kairos, it is a very good attempt at understanding the connections between scholarship and technology. The combination of traditional essays with new media in each issue creates a common ground that would be wrong to ignore. It is unfortunate that the journal seems to have been abandoned, but the issues that are available convey a well thought out academic approach to the emerging cyber culture.
Dr. David Jolliffe
Seminar in Rhetoric, Composition, and Literacy
17 February 2009
:// Reading Matters: Linking Literature
to a Hypertextual World
:// Reading Matters is a journal dedicated to exploring language through emerging opportunities in technology. From its inception, RM has been dedicated to the aesthetic possibilities available through the combination of literature and technology. This journal seeks to create and illuminate little-known opportunities that have come about in the past fifteen years. The magazine attempts to adhere to new rules and old rules alike. These rules often seem contradictory or muddled, but the goal of RM is to clearly define the connection between the two in today’s world.
://Reading Matters is a product of George Mason University’s New Media Group in English. Each issue handles a certain theme, ranging from poetry on the Internet, to the influence visual stimuli has on culture. Ten issues of the journal are currently available for free at http://englishmatters.gmu.edu/. It appears the journal was discontinued sometime in 2004, soon after the publication of the tenth issue. However, this journal still offers a unique look at scholarship’s potential through technology, while providing answers to many questions about the future of scholarship.
EM creates a common ground for authors, students, scholars, artists, and teachers. Many of the articles are from faculty and students at George Mason. The articles appeal to scholars with some technological experience, while at the same time providing a place where anyone can learn about new opportunities emerging on the Internet.
Because each issue focuses on a different theme of scholarship and technology, the subjects of the articles are extremely varied. In issue 1, a great deal of time is spent exploring the power the Internet has in providing poetry to the world. This ability to self-publish one’s work then leads to ideas about introducing visual media, hypertext, or even sounds to the traditional format of literature. The editors assume that these avenues of possibility will eventually lend themselves to creating a new form of literature based on the open-endedness of hypertextuality.
These kinds of connections, between traditional forms of paper based scholarship and new areas of digital creations, are the very thing that EM seeks to explain. It is evident they have received a good deal of backlash from traditionalists seeking to discredit their work before it has evolved to a state of complete clarification. A great deal of time in each issue is spent comparing old forms to new in an attempt to show the reader the very real possibilities of the future.
Each issue is uniquely separated into appropriate sections depending on the subject matter. The most common form they follow is an exhibit section showcasing the work of a scholar or artist that pertains to the current theme. Next, they will have an essay section in which they discuss the connections or consequences this theme will have upon the digital world. Often, an interview with a person that does work relating to the theme ends the issue. In this way, they are able to approach a theme from the perspective of an artist, a scholar, and an influential person in the field.
Each issue also has a “Related Issue” section. This section provides links to other websites or works pertaining to the theme, modules that help teachers creates lessons based on the ideas found in the magazine, media files of artists’ works, a calendar displaying opportunities for people to experience these subjects in a different environment, and a list of contributors for each issue. The modules are a very useful resource for teachers that are unsure about ways to approach new media in a classroom setting. The media files are far more interesting. These are audio or video files of artists or lecturers that relate directly to the theme.
One of the most interesting things on the entire website is in the Module section. It is called Plum Flowers. It is a computer program based on Todd Pitt’s paratactic poem about the Nanking Massacre, Plum Flowers-I. This “Pseudorandom Poem Generator” rearranges lines from the original poem to “create” a poem at the will of the viewer. There are fifty combinations overall and even though it might seem to be a cheap trick, it is actually an interesting exercise in the interchangeability of language.
:// English Matters is an interesting and insightful journal full of practical theories relating the world of reading and writing in the future. Even though it is not as polished as Kairos, it is a very good attempt at understanding the connections between scholarship and technology. The combination of traditional essays with new media in each issue creates a common ground that would be wrong to ignore. It is unfortunate that the journal seems to have been abandoned, but the issues that are available convey a well thought out academic approach to the emerging cyber culture.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Review: Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology and Pedagogy
The current Kairos went live on the web in 1996 as Kairos: A Journal for Teachers of Writing in Webbed Environments. Its specialization has been adapted to cover all issues related to the nexus of composition and the web. The journal is free online at http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/. Its publication frequency has varied from one to three issues per year.
One of the first peer-reviewed academic journals concerned with electronic writing or “web-texts” as Kairos calls its articles, Kairos has developed into a sophisticated web-journal as its subject matter has grown in relevance. It currently estimates its monthly readership at 45,000.
Kairos’ conceptual range is evident in its format. Each issue contains articles or contributions under several headings. The main three are “Topoi”, “Praxis”, and “Inventio”.
Texts under the heading “Topoi” focus on broad issues in the scope of web-based composition and pedagogy. A recent article focuses on the possibility of expanding writing centers to web-spaces — linking tutors non-locally with composition students. Another article here (co-written by authors from UCA, UALR and Iowa State) analyzes the “chronotype” or space-time of web environments as opposed to class room environments, and the possible effects with regard to students discoursing with each other more often and more freely about their texts.
The “Praxis” section focuses on case-studies in which teachers report on implementation of various technologies and organizational strategies; and how students have responded both as content learners and in coping with new presentation and navigation strategies.
Finally, “Inventio” looks back at certain web-texts and deconstructs them. Basically it is web-text authors discussing how they brought a particular web-text into being: what technological decisions they had to make, and how those decisions interacted with textual content.
The minor sections of the journal are “Disputatio”, a web version of letters to the editor; and PraxisWiki; a web-encyclopedia or “Wiki” of tips and tricks for web-text authors.
In general, this publication nicely negotiates its place in between the fields of technology and composition and pedagogy and occasionally literary theory. It is somewhat more daring than Computers in Composition, with edgier content and a practitioners slant. I have seen articles that integrate high post-modern theory into theorizing web writing and articles that have attempted to theorize web-based poetry and fiction. Most of the work published here though has to do with vocalizing responses from the field of rhetoric and composition pedagogy to the internet revolution. Two main streets of inquiry occur in this space. One, what skills or perspectives do we as composition teachers need to impart to students: what does the study of rhetoric and composition have to offer consumers of web-media? And secondly, how can these technologies be employed to both improve composition pedagogy in general and to aid students in analyzing and coping with web media.
Surrounding these primary questions however, Kairos goes anywhere and everywhere within the field of web-writing. The journal has had a lot to say with regard to intellectual property rights issues brought about by the metastases of web interfacing. Without pretending to encompass Kairos’ considerable contribution in this area, it is worth mentioning that they asked the big questions before they became questions. As early as 1996, Kairos was asking “Will writing be allowed in cyberspace?” In other words, within this space where text and technology merge, and given the late-capitalist mode of commodification of any discernible microbe of intellectual content, will web authors be able to say anything about anything, or will the entire web become proprietary. And we have all seen the question play out over the last decade to a relative equilibrium between the two sides. (I’ll refer you to the case of the musician Prince vs. his fans’ website that started a few years ago in which he actually sued his own fans for using his name and the name of his songs!)
For those interested in exploring this terrain of web-writing and its theoretical and practical implications, Kairos appears to be at the forefront of the conversation. It is an interesting accompaniment to the assortment of web-focused rhetoric and composition journals such as Computers and Composition. For instance, one writer who had published a piece in The Writing Instructor composed a companion piece in Kairos’ “Inventio” section, telling the story of the piece’s conception, composition and publication, and explaining how she went about telling the story by combining textual modalities and information architecture. Moreover, Kairos strives to stay ahead of the curve in theorizing textual implications of the transformation to digital media. Kairos takes more risks than its counterparts that tend to emphasize the traditional composition standards and practices, and it creates a space in which experimentation with multimodal texts can take place and actually be used to convey scholarly concepts.
One of the first peer-reviewed academic journals concerned with electronic writing or “web-texts” as Kairos calls its articles, Kairos has developed into a sophisticated web-journal as its subject matter has grown in relevance. It currently estimates its monthly readership at 45,000.
Kairos’ conceptual range is evident in its format. Each issue contains articles or contributions under several headings. The main three are “Topoi”, “Praxis”, and “Inventio”.
Texts under the heading “Topoi” focus on broad issues in the scope of web-based composition and pedagogy. A recent article focuses on the possibility of expanding writing centers to web-spaces — linking tutors non-locally with composition students. Another article here (co-written by authors from UCA, UALR and Iowa State) analyzes the “chronotype” or space-time of web environments as opposed to class room environments, and the possible effects with regard to students discoursing with each other more often and more freely about their texts.
The “Praxis” section focuses on case-studies in which teachers report on implementation of various technologies and organizational strategies; and how students have responded both as content learners and in coping with new presentation and navigation strategies.
Finally, “Inventio” looks back at certain web-texts and deconstructs them. Basically it is web-text authors discussing how they brought a particular web-text into being: what technological decisions they had to make, and how those decisions interacted with textual content.
The minor sections of the journal are “Disputatio”, a web version of letters to the editor; and PraxisWiki; a web-encyclopedia or “Wiki” of tips and tricks for web-text authors.
In general, this publication nicely negotiates its place in between the fields of technology and composition and pedagogy and occasionally literary theory. It is somewhat more daring than Computers in Composition, with edgier content and a practitioners slant. I have seen articles that integrate high post-modern theory into theorizing web writing and articles that have attempted to theorize web-based poetry and fiction. Most of the work published here though has to do with vocalizing responses from the field of rhetoric and composition pedagogy to the internet revolution. Two main streets of inquiry occur in this space. One, what skills or perspectives do we as composition teachers need to impart to students: what does the study of rhetoric and composition have to offer consumers of web-media? And secondly, how can these technologies be employed to both improve composition pedagogy in general and to aid students in analyzing and coping with web media.
Surrounding these primary questions however, Kairos goes anywhere and everywhere within the field of web-writing. The journal has had a lot to say with regard to intellectual property rights issues brought about by the metastases of web interfacing. Without pretending to encompass Kairos’ considerable contribution in this area, it is worth mentioning that they asked the big questions before they became questions. As early as 1996, Kairos was asking “Will writing be allowed in cyberspace?” In other words, within this space where text and technology merge, and given the late-capitalist mode of commodification of any discernible microbe of intellectual content, will web authors be able to say anything about anything, or will the entire web become proprietary. And we have all seen the question play out over the last decade to a relative equilibrium between the two sides. (I’ll refer you to the case of the musician Prince vs. his fans’ website that started a few years ago in which he actually sued his own fans for using his name and the name of his songs!)
For those interested in exploring this terrain of web-writing and its theoretical and practical implications, Kairos appears to be at the forefront of the conversation. It is an interesting accompaniment to the assortment of web-focused rhetoric and composition journals such as Computers and Composition. For instance, one writer who had published a piece in The Writing Instructor composed a companion piece in Kairos’ “Inventio” section, telling the story of the piece’s conception, composition and publication, and explaining how she went about telling the story by combining textual modalities and information architecture. Moreover, Kairos strives to stay ahead of the curve in theorizing textual implications of the transformation to digital media. Kairos takes more risks than its counterparts that tend to emphasize the traditional composition standards and practices, and it creates a space in which experimentation with multimodal texts can take place and actually be used to convey scholarly concepts.
The Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy focuses on classroom practices for teaching older learners. According to the publishers, JAAL is the only journal specifically designed for secondary and post-secondary readers. It seeks to explain modern literacy trends, technological advances and pop-culture phenomenon in terms of traditional literacy theory. The journal also includes practical application and teaching tools for reading instructors. Overall, the publication acts as an ever-evolving handbook for educators, combining pedagogical theory with hands-on advice and suggestions.
Publication Details
JAAL is a publication of the International Reading Association (IRA). Conceived in 1956, the IRA is a global non-profit organization that seeks to promote literacy and literacy programs across the world. The IRA has three specific goals: “Improving the quality of reading instruction, disseminating research and information about reading, [and] encouraging the lifetime reading habit” (www.reading.org). Members of the IRA serve as advocates for literacy, hold conferences on reading issues, and produce a number of publications, including JAAL, The Reading Teacher, and Reading Online.
JAAL appears in eight issues each year. Current it is in its fifty-second volume. Editions of the journal are available both in a print edition and online at the IRA website. A pared-down version of the most recent edition is available for free on the website. The subscription price is $69 for both the online and print editions with a slightly reduced price for online-only access. Student subscriptions are approximately 20% cheaper. Subscribers to JAAL may subscribe to other IRA publications at a significantly reduced rate.
The journal has an extensive review board. Most of the reviewers are located within the United States, but a small percentage are based outside the country, from locations as diverse as Canada and Singapore. The journal is edited by Tom Bean and Helen Harper at the University of Nevada.
Structure
A typical edition of JAAL is divided into two sections. The first section contains four to six full length full-length articles. These feature articles address issues of the integration of literacy theory and application. Typical articles range from 5,000 – 6,000 words and cover a broad variety of permutations on the concepts of literacy pedagogy. The second section, which the journal calls the “department” section, features brief commentaries on currently significant pedagogical issues, reviews of upcoming books, and reviews of newly available teaching tools and resources.
The most recent issue of JAAL is the February 2009 issue (Vol. 52, Issue 5). This particular issue features five full-length articles in addition to the standard five “department” sections. The article topics include the way that math and science students relate to texts, studies on teachers meeting the adequate yearly progress (AYP) goals imposed by the state, literacy through biography and history, the need for teachers with a varied skill set, and the development of vocabulary in middle school students . The department issues include a book review, a commentary on adolescent developmental literacy, an analysis of digital book clubs, a description of forming literacy governmental policy, and a review of new teaching resources. The book reviews cover six short novels marketed as young adult literature. The teaching resources section reviews two texts for educators: one on struggling readers and one on the development of literacy learning communities.
Analysis
Although the journal suggests that it serves educators of both adolescent and adult readers, the issues I surveyed seemed to lean more towards the teaching of young adult readers, especially in the book and teaching tools reviews. The commentaries were a bit more varied. Despite this possible misnomer, the journal appears to have a number of strengths. First, it is extremely accessible, both in the sense of the teacher’s ability to obtain the journal and in its readability. Scholars may retrieve the journals both in physical and digital form, and a subscription to the journal includes automatic membership to the IRA. The content is varied and practical. The dual-focus on theory and practice prevents the publication from adopting an ivory-tower approach that a number of theory-based journals assume. Although it is not as hands-on as other pedagogically-focused serial publications, its balance makes it a useful tool for educators interested in theory.
Journal Review: _Reading Horizons_
I'm going to copy & paste my review from a Word document; in the past doing so has caused formatting problems in a blog. We'll see...
The academic journal Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literary and Language Arts is published by the Dorothy J. McGinnis Reading Center and Clinic in the College of Education at Western Michigan University. This program is run through Western Michigan University’s Department of Special Education and Literacy Studies, within the College of Education. The journal is a quarterly publication, and is currently edited by Dr. Allison L. Baer.
Typical of academic journals, Reading Horizons depends on subscriptions to sustain its operation. Therefore, access to the journal requires either a personal subscription at twenty dollars per year, or access to an institution with a subscription. The journal will also sell back issues and microfilm, depending upon availability. Full-text, electronic versions of Reading Horizons articles do not seem to be available through major and comprehensive database systems, including Ebsco Host, Jstor, or Pro Quest. However, the journal does maintain a relatively complete and user-friendly website[1]. The site contains relevant information for anyone interested in reading or submitting to the journal, including its mission statement, editorial board and policies, and instructions for prospective contributors. Further, the site is cross-referenced with the Special Education and Literacy Studies website, including links to information about its various academic programs, research projects, and community outreach efforts. Especially because of its lack of accessibility through electronic databases, one particularly helpful component of the website is the availability of sample Reading Horizons articles from recent issues. Although only two sample articles are currently online in pdf format, in the most recent issue of the quarterly Baer advertises this newly added feature as part of a larger upgrade of the site, which likely means that additional samples will be posted soon. Nothing about the Reading Horizons website makes its presence on the web particularly unique or groundbreaking, nor are there any truly interactive features such as message boards. Nonetheless, its site is easy to navigate and contains plenty of relevant links, including direct email to the journal’s editor.
One piece of information reproduced on the website—the journal’s history and mission statement—is notable because it points to the intended readership of Reading Horizons. According to this brief summary, the publication began as a local newsletter, but has grown into an international journal. The statement describes Reading Horizons as:
The academic journal Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literary and Language Arts is published by the Dorothy J. McGinnis Reading Center and Clinic in the College of Education at Western Michigan University. This program is run through Western Michigan University’s Department of Special Education and Literacy Studies, within the College of Education. The journal is a quarterly publication, and is currently edited by Dr. Allison L. Baer.
Typical of academic journals, Reading Horizons depends on subscriptions to sustain its operation. Therefore, access to the journal requires either a personal subscription at twenty dollars per year, or access to an institution with a subscription. The journal will also sell back issues and microfilm, depending upon availability. Full-text, electronic versions of Reading Horizons articles do not seem to be available through major and comprehensive database systems, including Ebsco Host, Jstor, or Pro Quest. However, the journal does maintain a relatively complete and user-friendly website[1]. The site contains relevant information for anyone interested in reading or submitting to the journal, including its mission statement, editorial board and policies, and instructions for prospective contributors. Further, the site is cross-referenced with the Special Education and Literacy Studies website, including links to information about its various academic programs, research projects, and community outreach efforts. Especially because of its lack of accessibility through electronic databases, one particularly helpful component of the website is the availability of sample Reading Horizons articles from recent issues. Although only two sample articles are currently online in pdf format, in the most recent issue of the quarterly Baer advertises this newly added feature as part of a larger upgrade of the site, which likely means that additional samples will be posted soon. Nothing about the Reading Horizons website makes its presence on the web particularly unique or groundbreaking, nor are there any truly interactive features such as message boards. Nonetheless, its site is easy to navigate and contains plenty of relevant links, including direct email to the journal’s editor.
One piece of information reproduced on the website—the journal’s history and mission statement—is notable because it points to the intended readership of Reading Horizons. According to this brief summary, the publication began as a local newsletter, but has grown into an international journal. The statement describes Reading Horizons as:
[A] forum for ideas from many schools of thought dedicated to building upon the knowledge base of literacy through research, theoretical essays, opinion pieces, policy studies, and synthesis of best practices. Reading Horizons seeks to bring together school professionals, literacy researchers, teacher educators, parents, and community leaders as they work collaboratively to widen the horizons of literacy and language arts.
If Reading Horizons genuinely wishes to “bring together” such large and broadly defined groups, they most likely are not anticipating doing so through their circulation. Certainly the insularity of academic journals prevents the vast majority of parents from participating in the “forum,” as well as many—if not most—community leaders and school professionals, even those who are interested in engagement. Given the limited availability of Reading Horizons and its relatively consistent use of jargon, the actual readership (as opposed to its professed readership) is almost certainly comprised nearly exclusively of literacy researchers and teacher educators, most likely working in academia.
This generalization about the Reading Horizons audience is reinforced by the content and focus of most of its published articles. The content of the three most recent issues—thirteen articles—can be divided fairly firmly, albeit with some inevitable overlapping, into three classifications. The first category could be called “teacher educator research,” and totals six articles. Examples include Margaret A. Moore-Hart’s “Supporting Teachers in their Integration of Technology with Literacy,” and Deanna Day’s “From Skeptic to Believer: One Teacher’s Journey Implementing Literature Circles.” The focus of this category of article concerns practice, and attends to classroom policies and teaching methods with respect to literacy. Examples tend to involve field research and are heavy on interviews and statistical data organized into charts or graphs. Although the results would be beneficial to teachers, the authorial perspective and apparent intended audience is the teacher educator—research intended to have a trickle-down effect, rather than directly addressing teachers. The second type of article in Reading Horizons could be called “literacy research theory,” and includes Jacqueline Lynch et al, “Parents and Preschool Children Interacting with Storybooks: Children’s Early Literacy Achievement,” and Mona W. Matthews and John E. Kesner’s “It’s Time to Foreground the Relational Aspects of Literacy Learning.” This category concentrates on theories of literacy, including language acquisition, literacy development, and literacy’s relationships to psychology and neuroscience. Although the authors of these articles, to vary degrees, address the implications of their research in the classroom, the focus is questions of how we read and write. The final category is by far the most distinct. The final pieces in the three most recent issues of Reading Horizons are all catalogues of recommended children’s literature, compiled by Barbara A. Ward and Terrell A. Young. The themes of the collections, which contain reading for children grades kindergarten through high school, tend to be “progressive,” such as “green” literature or recommended biographies and nonfiction that emphasize African-American and women figures. These recommendations at the end of each issue seem aimed at teachers and librarians, although—when compared to the preceding articles—seem a bit incongruous with the journal as a whole. The inclusion of these recommendations legitimates the journal’s claim that its audience includes parents and teachers, but seems a slightly halfhearted effort to truly embrace these readers.
Despite some differences, a relatively consistent theme runs across these three generalized categories of articles found in Reading Horizons. The journal’s so-called “center of gravity” is effective literacy training in the classroom. Whether the contribution is a methodological evaluation of teaching practices, or an analysis and refinement of literacy theory, each article to some degree returns to the question, “How best do students learn to read and write?” This fundamental concern is exemplified in the motto of Reading Horizons, appearing on its website and in each issue: “There is no more crucial or basic skill in all of education than reading.” Reading Horizons maintains a coherency and consistency by adhering to that statement through the publication of research that focuses on how best to understand literacy and improve the instruction of that most crucial skill.
[1] The website’s URL is: http://www.wmich.edu/coe/spls/clinic/readhorizons-board.htm.
This generalization about the Reading Horizons audience is reinforced by the content and focus of most of its published articles. The content of the three most recent issues—thirteen articles—can be divided fairly firmly, albeit with some inevitable overlapping, into three classifications. The first category could be called “teacher educator research,” and totals six articles. Examples include Margaret A. Moore-Hart’s “Supporting Teachers in their Integration of Technology with Literacy,” and Deanna Day’s “From Skeptic to Believer: One Teacher’s Journey Implementing Literature Circles.” The focus of this category of article concerns practice, and attends to classroom policies and teaching methods with respect to literacy. Examples tend to involve field research and are heavy on interviews and statistical data organized into charts or graphs. Although the results would be beneficial to teachers, the authorial perspective and apparent intended audience is the teacher educator—research intended to have a trickle-down effect, rather than directly addressing teachers. The second type of article in Reading Horizons could be called “literacy research theory,” and includes Jacqueline Lynch et al, “Parents and Preschool Children Interacting with Storybooks: Children’s Early Literacy Achievement,” and Mona W. Matthews and John E. Kesner’s “It’s Time to Foreground the Relational Aspects of Literacy Learning.” This category concentrates on theories of literacy, including language acquisition, literacy development, and literacy’s relationships to psychology and neuroscience. Although the authors of these articles, to vary degrees, address the implications of their research in the classroom, the focus is questions of how we read and write. The final category is by far the most distinct. The final pieces in the three most recent issues of Reading Horizons are all catalogues of recommended children’s literature, compiled by Barbara A. Ward and Terrell A. Young. The themes of the collections, which contain reading for children grades kindergarten through high school, tend to be “progressive,” such as “green” literature or recommended biographies and nonfiction that emphasize African-American and women figures. These recommendations at the end of each issue seem aimed at teachers and librarians, although—when compared to the preceding articles—seem a bit incongruous with the journal as a whole. The inclusion of these recommendations legitimates the journal’s claim that its audience includes parents and teachers, but seems a slightly halfhearted effort to truly embrace these readers.
Despite some differences, a relatively consistent theme runs across these three generalized categories of articles found in Reading Horizons. The journal’s so-called “center of gravity” is effective literacy training in the classroom. Whether the contribution is a methodological evaluation of teaching practices, or an analysis and refinement of literacy theory, each article to some degree returns to the question, “How best do students learn to read and write?” This fundamental concern is exemplified in the motto of Reading Horizons, appearing on its website and in each issue: “There is no more crucial or basic skill in all of education than reading.” Reading Horizons maintains a coherency and consistency by adhering to that statement through the publication of research that focuses on how best to understand literacy and improve the instruction of that most crucial skill.
[1] The website’s URL is: http://www.wmich.edu/coe/spls/clinic/readhorizons-board.htm.
The Journal of Teaching Writing
I chose to review the Journal of Teaching Writing because I feel that the research in this field is not as well known nor respected as the scholarship being done in the areas of literary criticism, reading theory, and literacy. If teaching English is undervalued in academia, and teaching writing is even more looked down upon by people in our field, then research on teaching writing is probably at the bottom of the heap. Despite this stigma, the Journal of Teaching Writing seeks to provide practical, applicable, and well thought-out studies for teachers of writing at all grade levels.
The Journal of Teaching Writing is published by the organization Indiana Teachers of Writing, based at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. It comes out twice a year, although in recent years, both issues have been combined into a single print copy. From my research, the journal can only be accessed via print; subscriptions are $20 for individuals and $25 for institutions. Currently, it does not appear on the list of electronic subscriptions for the University of Arkansas, MLA Bibliography, JSTOR, ProQuest, or Project Muse. Moreover, the journal’s website, http://www.iupui.edu/~jtw/, claims to be under construction, but the cached page from earlier this month had not been updated since 2005. Certainly, if the journal wishes to be relevant to 21st century readers, the ITW should increase the Journal of Teaching Writing’s presence on the internet.
The question of teacher access to the journal is a particularly salient one, since the journal’s editorial policy states that it “publishes articles of interest to teachers at all grade levels, from preschool through university.” However, the majority of the journal’s articles are written about teaching writing at universities. Some articles address teaching of writing at the high school level, but even those articles tend to address the gap between high school writing and college writing, rather than considering high school writing by itself. According to their website, the Indiana Teachers of Writing organization was founded by a group of teachers at the College English Association conference, so perhaps the inclusiveness of the journal has been a consistent project for the journal rather than a statement of its demographics. Due to the policy’s inclusion of all teachers of writing, from teachers of preschool to graduate school, the authors in the Journal of Teaching Writing tend to write articles that are practical in nature rather than theoretical. Most articles are heavily grounded in what actually happens in the classroom and include examples of assignments and student work.
In the three volumes I read (2008, 2004, and 2002 – the most recent ones available at our library), the journal’s “center of gravity” appears to be twofold: first, the role of the teacher’s authority in the classroom, and second, students’ entrance into an academic community and the subsequent identity shifts occurring as students adapt to new or different roles as writers. The first center of gravity is not too surprising, since most recent research in the field favors finding ways for students to accept authority for their own written works. In the 2002 volume, participants consider new roles for teachers in a decentered classroom (“Better Writing Through Apprenticeship Learning: Helping to Solve the Ill-Structured Problem” and “Reconfiguring Donald’s Ladder: A New Image for the Thinking About Reflective Practice in Writing Instruction”), and in the fall 2008 issue, authors examine how students perceive authority through grading (“Grading as a Process Toward Growth: Deferring Grades on Writing Assignments” and “Lessons Learned: High Stakes Writing Tests Shape Teaching and Students’ Attitude and Achievement”). I imagine that this information would be useful to many teachers because theoretically many of us agree with the principles of a decentered classroom, but we sometimes have difficulty putting those theories into action. Additionally, some of the articles also note student resistance to the paradigm, a problem I have occasionally encountered in my own teaching.
I suspect that student resistance to authority in the classroom may also inform the journal’s examination of its second center of gravity, how students adapt to the role of an academic writer. The fall 2008 issue explores how students enter academic literacy (“A Scholarly Project: Film as an Introductory Academic Literacy” and “A Case Study of Reading in a Writing-Intensive Physics Course for Non-Majors “), and the 2004 and 2002 volumes consider the types of written projects that teachers could include in a linguistically diverse classroom (“The American Scholar Writes the ‘New’ Research Essay,” “Teaching Writing as Story,” “Writing with an Accent: A Marginal Multi-lingual Voice Seeking a Place in Academe,” and “Write about Ebonics: A Composition Course at the University of Akron,” just to name a few). While I think that the journal’s focus on widening the scope of academic reading and writing is a move in the right direction, I wonder how a teacher should position herself as an authority in such a classroom – a nod to the first center of gravity in the journal. If we teach the conventions of academia to students who have not necessarily been exposed to them – and thus provide a connection between their lives and the type of academic work they are asked to do in school - do we inevitably blur the line between our authority and our knowledge of academic conventions? Is there a practical way to establish a classroom environment in which students can make the transition between non-academic writer and academic writer without allying yourself with the academic institution? And would such a move be ethically and pedagogically sound?
The Journal of Teaching Writing is published by the organization Indiana Teachers of Writing, based at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. It comes out twice a year, although in recent years, both issues have been combined into a single print copy. From my research, the journal can only be accessed via print; subscriptions are $20 for individuals and $25 for institutions. Currently, it does not appear on the list of electronic subscriptions for the University of Arkansas, MLA Bibliography, JSTOR, ProQuest, or Project Muse. Moreover, the journal’s website, http://www.iupui.edu/~jtw/, claims to be under construction, but the cached page from earlier this month had not been updated since 2005. Certainly, if the journal wishes to be relevant to 21st century readers, the ITW should increase the Journal of Teaching Writing’s presence on the internet.
The question of teacher access to the journal is a particularly salient one, since the journal’s editorial policy states that it “publishes articles of interest to teachers at all grade levels, from preschool through university.” However, the majority of the journal’s articles are written about teaching writing at universities. Some articles address teaching of writing at the high school level, but even those articles tend to address the gap between high school writing and college writing, rather than considering high school writing by itself. According to their website, the Indiana Teachers of Writing organization was founded by a group of teachers at the College English Association conference, so perhaps the inclusiveness of the journal has been a consistent project for the journal rather than a statement of its demographics. Due to the policy’s inclusion of all teachers of writing, from teachers of preschool to graduate school, the authors in the Journal of Teaching Writing tend to write articles that are practical in nature rather than theoretical. Most articles are heavily grounded in what actually happens in the classroom and include examples of assignments and student work.
In the three volumes I read (2008, 2004, and 2002 – the most recent ones available at our library), the journal’s “center of gravity” appears to be twofold: first, the role of the teacher’s authority in the classroom, and second, students’ entrance into an academic community and the subsequent identity shifts occurring as students adapt to new or different roles as writers. The first center of gravity is not too surprising, since most recent research in the field favors finding ways for students to accept authority for their own written works. In the 2002 volume, participants consider new roles for teachers in a decentered classroom (“Better Writing Through Apprenticeship Learning: Helping to Solve the Ill-Structured Problem” and “Reconfiguring Donald’s Ladder: A New Image for the Thinking About Reflective Practice in Writing Instruction”), and in the fall 2008 issue, authors examine how students perceive authority through grading (“Grading as a Process Toward Growth: Deferring Grades on Writing Assignments” and “Lessons Learned: High Stakes Writing Tests Shape Teaching and Students’ Attitude and Achievement”). I imagine that this information would be useful to many teachers because theoretically many of us agree with the principles of a decentered classroom, but we sometimes have difficulty putting those theories into action. Additionally, some of the articles also note student resistance to the paradigm, a problem I have occasionally encountered in my own teaching.
I suspect that student resistance to authority in the classroom may also inform the journal’s examination of its second center of gravity, how students adapt to the role of an academic writer. The fall 2008 issue explores how students enter academic literacy (“A Scholarly Project: Film as an Introductory Academic Literacy” and “A Case Study of Reading in a Writing-Intensive Physics Course for Non-Majors “), and the 2004 and 2002 volumes consider the types of written projects that teachers could include in a linguistically diverse classroom (“The American Scholar Writes the ‘New’ Research Essay,” “Teaching Writing as Story,” “Writing with an Accent: A Marginal Multi-lingual Voice Seeking a Place in Academe,” and “Write about Ebonics: A Composition Course at the University of Akron,” just to name a few). While I think that the journal’s focus on widening the scope of academic reading and writing is a move in the right direction, I wonder how a teacher should position herself as an authority in such a classroom – a nod to the first center of gravity in the journal. If we teach the conventions of academia to students who have not necessarily been exposed to them – and thus provide a connection between their lives and the type of academic work they are asked to do in school - do we inevitably blur the line between our authority and our knowledge of academic conventions? Is there a practical way to establish a classroom environment in which students can make the transition between non-academic writer and academic writer without allying yourself with the academic institution? And would such a move be ethically and pedagogically sound?
Computers and Composition: An International Journal
Nearing its third decade of publication since its first issue in 1983, Computers and Composition: An International Journal (http://computersandcomposition.osu.edu/default.html)
enjoys a dynamic history that is itself a testimony to the rapidly evolving field of composition studies and the role that technology has in shaping the field. First published as a small newsletter, Computers and Composition originated as a collection of short articles focused on computer software and was co-edited by Cynthia Selfe and Kathleen Kiefer. By 1985, an editorial review board and a copyediting staff joined the journal, producing a more professional, scholarly journal and shifting “from brief narratives about classroom experiences using technology, descriptions of working with drill-and-skill programs, and software reviews to articles of a longer length that more fully incorporated pedagogical and rhetorical theories and boldly confronted the complexities of merging computer technologies with classroom practices” http://computersandcomposition.osu.edu/html/history.htm).
In 1988, Gail E. Hawisher joined Selfe as co-editor, and by 1994 Computers and Composition began its mass-production in print format under the title of Computers and Composition: An International Journal for Teachers of Writing. At this point in the journal’s history, there is a marked increase in articles reflecting international issues of digital literacy and the socio-political relevance to gender, race, and class. Computers and Composition Online, the web-based edition of the journal, saw its creation in 1996 to facilitate the inclusion of hypertext documents and multimedia scholarship, an issue that many traditional journals still struggle to reconcile. By 2002, the journal produced its third book series, published by Hampton Press and entitled New Dimension in Computers and Composition Studies. At this point, the journal changed its name to its current title, Computers and Compostion: An International Journal, and by 2006, the journal officially moved to online submissions, review, and copyediting. Computers and Compostion and its online counterpart, Computers and Composition Online, is now in its twenty-sixth year and is downloaded in over 60 countries (http://computersandcomposition.osu.edu/html/history.htm).
It comes as little surprise that the journal’s rapid success parallels the growth of technology and its influence in composition studies. Devoted to publishing diverse articles focused on digital writing pedagogy; writing programs; rhetorical critique of computer software and the visual, textual digital media; and technology’s relevance to socio-economic conditions, Computers and Composition manages to interrogate the current trends in digital media and composition studies while astutely anticipating the imminent shifts in the culturally symbiotic relationship that has developed between technology and literacy. Typical for the journal, any edition might cover topics ranging in scope from composition pedagogy to digital rhetoric in society and politics to software programming to online portfolios to video gaming to community web design or the video essay. For example, Volume 25.4 (2008), the most recent issue of Computers and Composition, contains seemingly disparate topics such as Dong-shin Shin and Tony Cimasko’s article entitled “Multimodal Composition in a College ESL Class: New Tools, Traditional Norms” (376-395) and Caroline E. Dadas’s article, “Inventing the Election: Civic Participation and Presidential Candidates' Websites” (416-431). Readers enjoy the pedagogical examination of alternative approaches to L2 learners through the use of technology as Shin and Cimasko explain:
The use of non-traditional modes enabled the students to express their cultural and national identities. Showing the horror of the Kashmiri conflict, the physical and psychic stress of education in China, and hopes for a peaceful Colombia speak to students’ additional priorities. Their use of non-linguistic modes as outlets for expressing identities and emotional connections suggests an interest in establishing individuality within their developing academic disciplinarity. (390)
Through the article's lengthy study of ESL web-based composing, we explore pedagogical examples of alternative uses of technology in writing classrooms designed specifically for the L2 community, and we deepen our understanding of the potential for technology to bring out the best in our student writers. Yet just as we come to understand the psycho-pedagogical implications of self-expression through online writing, Computers and Composition asks us to turn our attention to Dadas’ article rhetorically critiquing the levels of civic participation encouraged through the construction of presidential candidates’ websites. Dada writes:
As the tools of the so-called digital democracy provide us with new mechanisms for participation, we must devote attention to how users can harness these tools to create a more informed and involved citizenry. Additionally, more effort should be made on the part of website designers to provide a forum for users where they can express what modes or tools they need in order to make productive contributions. Instead of assuming what users want or need, websites can become a place where the topic of participation itself is placed into dialogue. (430)
While this article may seem oddly placed alongside an ESL pedagogy article, the two entries share one common, cultural, discursive practice: digital literacy. Threaded throughout all articles that span this journal’s nearly thirty years of publication is the understanding that technology plays a vital role in shaping not just the composing process (i.e., how we write) but also the function of composing (i.e., why we write).
Perhaps one of literacy studies’ most interdisciplinary journals, Computers and Composition is by far the seminal journal available today querying concerns surrounding the relationships between technology and writing pedagogy, writing labs, writing programs, and writing as a society. Equally important, however, is the journal’s unyielding dedication to unearthing the publically and privately hierarchically situated uses of power, agency, and writing through technology. Balancing the concerns of the academy alongside the concerns of the citizen is a lofty goal for any academic journal, yet Computers and Compositions manages to successfully finesse this precarious balance through the complex lens of the computer screen.
Works Cited
“A Brief History of Computers and Composition.” Computers and Composition: An International Journal. The Ohio State University. 14 Feb. 2009. http://computersandcomposition.osu.edu/
Shin, Dong-shing and Tony Cimasko. “Multimodal Composition in a College ESL Class: New Tools, Traditional Norms.” Computers and Composition: An International Journal 25.4 (2008): 376-395.
enjoys a dynamic history that is itself a testimony to the rapidly evolving field of composition studies and the role that technology has in shaping the field. First published as a small newsletter, Computers and Composition originated as a collection of short articles focused on computer software and was co-edited by Cynthia Selfe and Kathleen Kiefer. By 1985, an editorial review board and a copyediting staff joined the journal, producing a more professional, scholarly journal and shifting “from brief narratives about classroom experiences using technology, descriptions of working with drill-and-skill programs, and software reviews to articles of a longer length that more fully incorporated pedagogical and rhetorical theories and boldly confronted the complexities of merging computer technologies with classroom practices” http://computersandcomposition.osu.edu/html/history.htm).
In 1988, Gail E. Hawisher joined Selfe as co-editor, and by 1994 Computers and Composition began its mass-production in print format under the title of Computers and Composition: An International Journal for Teachers of Writing. At this point in the journal’s history, there is a marked increase in articles reflecting international issues of digital literacy and the socio-political relevance to gender, race, and class. Computers and Composition Online, the web-based edition of the journal, saw its creation in 1996 to facilitate the inclusion of hypertext documents and multimedia scholarship, an issue that many traditional journals still struggle to reconcile. By 2002, the journal produced its third book series, published by Hampton Press and entitled New Dimension in Computers and Composition Studies. At this point, the journal changed its name to its current title, Computers and Compostion: An International Journal, and by 2006, the journal officially moved to online submissions, review, and copyediting. Computers and Compostion and its online counterpart, Computers and Composition Online, is now in its twenty-sixth year and is downloaded in over 60 countries (http://computersandcomposition.osu.edu/html/history.htm).
It comes as little surprise that the journal’s rapid success parallels the growth of technology and its influence in composition studies. Devoted to publishing diverse articles focused on digital writing pedagogy; writing programs; rhetorical critique of computer software and the visual, textual digital media; and technology’s relevance to socio-economic conditions, Computers and Composition manages to interrogate the current trends in digital media and composition studies while astutely anticipating the imminent shifts in the culturally symbiotic relationship that has developed between technology and literacy. Typical for the journal, any edition might cover topics ranging in scope from composition pedagogy to digital rhetoric in society and politics to software programming to online portfolios to video gaming to community web design or the video essay. For example, Volume 25.4 (2008), the most recent issue of Computers and Composition, contains seemingly disparate topics such as Dong-shin Shin and Tony Cimasko’s article entitled “Multimodal Composition in a College ESL Class: New Tools, Traditional Norms” (376-395) and Caroline E. Dadas’s article, “Inventing the Election: Civic Participation and Presidential Candidates' Websites” (416-431). Readers enjoy the pedagogical examination of alternative approaches to L2 learners through the use of technology as Shin and Cimasko explain:
The use of non-traditional modes enabled the students to express their cultural and national identities. Showing the horror of the Kashmiri conflict, the physical and psychic stress of education in China, and hopes for a peaceful Colombia speak to students’ additional priorities. Their use of non-linguistic modes as outlets for expressing identities and emotional connections suggests an interest in establishing individuality within their developing academic disciplinarity. (390)
Through the article's lengthy study of ESL web-based composing, we explore pedagogical examples of alternative uses of technology in writing classrooms designed specifically for the L2 community, and we deepen our understanding of the potential for technology to bring out the best in our student writers. Yet just as we come to understand the psycho-pedagogical implications of self-expression through online writing, Computers and Composition asks us to turn our attention to Dadas’ article rhetorically critiquing the levels of civic participation encouraged through the construction of presidential candidates’ websites. Dada writes:
As the tools of the so-called digital democracy provide us with new mechanisms for participation, we must devote attention to how users can harness these tools to create a more informed and involved citizenry. Additionally, more effort should be made on the part of website designers to provide a forum for users where they can express what modes or tools they need in order to make productive contributions. Instead of assuming what users want or need, websites can become a place where the topic of participation itself is placed into dialogue. (430)
While this article may seem oddly placed alongside an ESL pedagogy article, the two entries share one common, cultural, discursive practice: digital literacy. Threaded throughout all articles that span this journal’s nearly thirty years of publication is the understanding that technology plays a vital role in shaping not just the composing process (i.e., how we write) but also the function of composing (i.e., why we write).
Perhaps one of literacy studies’ most interdisciplinary journals, Computers and Composition is by far the seminal journal available today querying concerns surrounding the relationships between technology and writing pedagogy, writing labs, writing programs, and writing as a society. Equally important, however, is the journal’s unyielding dedication to unearthing the publically and privately hierarchically situated uses of power, agency, and writing through technology. Balancing the concerns of the academy alongside the concerns of the citizen is a lofty goal for any academic journal, yet Computers and Compositions manages to successfully finesse this precarious balance through the complex lens of the computer screen.
Works Cited
“A Brief History of Computers and Composition.” Computers and Composition: An International Journal. The Ohio State University. 14 Feb. 2009. http://computersandcomposition.osu.edu/
Dadas, Caroline E. “Inventing the Election: Civic Participation and Presidential Candidates’
Websites.” Computers and Composition: An International Journal 25.4 (2008): 416-431.
Websites.” Computers and Composition: An International Journal 25.4 (2008): 416-431.
Shin, Dong-shing and Tony Cimasko. “Multimodal Composition in a College ESL Class: New Tools, Traditional Norms.” Computers and Composition: An International Journal 25.4 (2008): 376-395.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
journal review
A Review of Reading in a Foreign Language: A refereed international online journal of issues in foreign language reading and literacy.
Reading in a Foreign Language (RFL) is an academic journal that was founded in 1983 at the University of Aston, Birmingham, England. It was then moved to the University of Hawai’i in 2002. The main co-authors are Richard R. Day and Thom Hudson, and reviews editor is Ann Burns. The journal presents recent research on the theory and practice of reading and literacy among second and foreign language teachers and learners. It also provides some theoretical and pedagogical standards for teaching and learning reading in foreign languages. The journal is published twice a year, in April and October. The editorial board has their own submission guidelines, among which the main requirement is that manuscripts have to be related to the learning and teaching of reading in a foreign language. The journal also publishes some reviews of scholarly books, teaching materials, reports and discussion briefings. All the articles are published in English, but some includes several foreign language terms and citations. The RFL is a free online journal; however, the first 13 issues of the journal were produced in hard copies and available in most university libraries in the USA and other countries.
As I read the last three issues of this journal, I found that in each issue there is a general theme that connects the articles in that particular issue. For example, the last issue of October 2008 presents some experimental studies on reading and vocabulary in a foreign language. One article by Ronan Brown et al. discusses the frequency of second or foreign language learners’ acquisition of new vocabulary through reading, listening while reading, and just listening to some texts. The study concludes that foreign language readers tend to pick more words in the first two kinds of readings and less in the third. The other articles in the same issue deal with reading competence and vocabulary acquisition investigating whether vocabulary assistance can help increase reading and comprehension, and where and how that assistance should be given.
The other two issues I read presents some original research on issues regarding the differences between “good” readers and “bad” readers, and the common skills and strategies that would make a good reader in both L1 & L2. Some presents a discussion of extensive reading and the overall development of reading fluency, concluding that extensive reading, mostly reading for pleasure, is a major factor in achieving some reading fluency (Yurika Iwahori).
One of the interesting controversies that the journal presents is how different ethnic groups read differently. Some articles argue that these groups develop their vocabulary recognition proportionally to the ways they developed their reading fluency and word recognition in their L1. I found those conclusions very interesting and plan to do some future research on Arab students’ reading skills and words recognition. I also learned that, for foreign language readers, learning words of familiar synonyms is much easier that learning new words or words that they do not have any synonym for. Interesting!
Reading in a Foreign Language (RFL) is an academic journal that was founded in 1983 at the University of Aston, Birmingham, England. It was then moved to the University of Hawai’i in 2002. The main co-authors are Richard R. Day and Thom Hudson, and reviews editor is Ann Burns. The journal presents recent research on the theory and practice of reading and literacy among second and foreign language teachers and learners. It also provides some theoretical and pedagogical standards for teaching and learning reading in foreign languages. The journal is published twice a year, in April and October. The editorial board has their own submission guidelines, among which the main requirement is that manuscripts have to be related to the learning and teaching of reading in a foreign language. The journal also publishes some reviews of scholarly books, teaching materials, reports and discussion briefings. All the articles are published in English, but some includes several foreign language terms and citations. The RFL is a free online journal; however, the first 13 issues of the journal were produced in hard copies and available in most university libraries in the USA and other countries.
As I read the last three issues of this journal, I found that in each issue there is a general theme that connects the articles in that particular issue. For example, the last issue of October 2008 presents some experimental studies on reading and vocabulary in a foreign language. One article by Ronan Brown et al. discusses the frequency of second or foreign language learners’ acquisition of new vocabulary through reading, listening while reading, and just listening to some texts. The study concludes that foreign language readers tend to pick more words in the first two kinds of readings and less in the third. The other articles in the same issue deal with reading competence and vocabulary acquisition investigating whether vocabulary assistance can help increase reading and comprehension, and where and how that assistance should be given.
The other two issues I read presents some original research on issues regarding the differences between “good” readers and “bad” readers, and the common skills and strategies that would make a good reader in both L1 & L2. Some presents a discussion of extensive reading and the overall development of reading fluency, concluding that extensive reading, mostly reading for pleasure, is a major factor in achieving some reading fluency (Yurika Iwahori).
One of the interesting controversies that the journal presents is how different ethnic groups read differently. Some articles argue that these groups develop their vocabulary recognition proportionally to the ways they developed their reading fluency and word recognition in their L1. I found those conclusions very interesting and plan to do some future research on Arab students’ reading skills and words recognition. I also learned that, for foreign language readers, learning words of familiar synonyms is much easier that learning new words or words that they do not have any synonym for. Interesting!
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
NCTE Day on Writing
I got an e-mail from NCTE today about the National Day on Writing, October 20, 2009, and thought I'd pass along a link about it:
http://www.ncte.org/action/dayonwriting
Of particular interest are the two ways NCTE invites members to participate. The first is to "submit a 'resource piece' that can help non-educators write or understand writing," and the second is to "organize a group of students or community members to create their own 'hall' or exhibition in the national gallery" of writing that NCTE is creating for the event. This gallery will contain all different kinds of pieces: instructional manuals, poetry, journal entries, blog postings, and so on. The only requirement for inclusion is that the writing matter to the writer.
Follow the link to learn more...
http://www.ncte.org/action/dayonwriting
Of particular interest are the two ways NCTE invites members to participate. The first is to "submit a 'resource piece' that can help non-educators write or understand writing," and the second is to "organize a group of students or community members to create their own 'hall' or exhibition in the national gallery" of writing that NCTE is creating for the event. This gallery will contain all different kinds of pieces: instructional manuals, poetry, journal entries, blog postings, and so on. The only requirement for inclusion is that the writing matter to the writer.
Follow the link to learn more...
Friday, February 6, 2009
Ourselves as Readers
I liked the tastes of your "myself as a reader" pieces that I got on Tuesday, and I'd love to see the rest of them. If you're willing to share, you can e-mail them to me privately, but it would be (even more) fun to see them here! We'll share a lot of our less personal writing on the blog this term; why not the fun stuff too? (Not that there's not something SUPER enjoyable about encyclopedia entries... :))
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)