Before I start reacting to the readings for this week, I would like to share two links with everyone. The first is Edmodo, which looks suspiciously like Facebook, yet alleges that it is completely private and to have access, students must login with a randomly generated code provided to the teacher (much like turnitin.com, which my school already uses). VERY COOL! It's way prettier than Moodle, and there's only teeniest of learning curves. I figured it out in about five minutes.
Link the second! This is a news article that I ran across which happens to be talking about the need for social networking tools to become a part of the classroom. Here it is. Thank you, MaryAnn, for teaching me how to hyperlink in Blogger.
I would like to start with Shipka's article, "A Multimodal Task-Based Framework for Composing." If I were only able to give one article to my department head and principal about multimodal composing, this one would probably be it (selectively highlighted of course!). Shipka is able to articulate in this article that while multimodal composition appears to be an entirely different process from alphabetic text composition, it accomplishes the same goals as traditional writing with better results. Shipka asserts, "that what students come to understand about potentials for processes, processing, and revision is far richer and more complex when practiced within this kind of goal-directed multimodal task-based framework" (302). Students generally abhor the concept of revision. They want to quickly tap out something in a Word document, hit print, and never look at it again. Students do not typically feel this way about revising multimodal texts, particularly when they are allowed to choose the media for their presentations. I have had students in the past who have loved making videos so much, that they did asked for permission to create a video instead of the more traditional text requested. I was more than happy to let them try it and we hashed out what would have to be accomplished in their video. These students spent hours and hours working on, revising, editing, re-taping, and layering their video and it was amazing. Now these students had access to these resources and technical knowledge on their own and were able to achieve this.
There is a caveat to multimodal success. Shipka writes, Increasing the range of semiotic resources with which students are allowed to work will not, in and of itself, lead to a greater awareness of the ways systems of delivery, reception, and circulation shape (and take shape from) the means and modes of production. Instead, I argue, composition courses present students with the opportunity to begin structuring the occasions for, as well as the reception and delivery of, the work they produce" (279-80). Just having video, audio, or other resources available does not ensure the types of higher level thinking that could potentially be associated with these types of composition. Instead, metacognition seems to be the key to Shipka's success with her students' projects. By requiring students to give her "head's up" about their ideas regarding the choices, execution, and revision of their projects, Shipka creates a learning environment in which it is not enough to simply turn in a finished product, but one in which the process--the minutiae of individual decisions leading to that finished product--are as valuable or more valuable to the instructor in evaluating that student's growth in the understanding of rhetoric. As Shipka puts it, "students must always account for the specific goals they aimed to achieve with their work and then specifically address how the rhetorical, material, methodological, and technological choices they made contributed to the realization of their goals"(287).
As I read Selfe's chapter, "Experimenting with Multimodality," I repeatedly starred various techniques to try next year when I am back in the classroom full-time. All the strategies about helping students take ownership of the technology they will use and teaching their peers to use the equipment are excellent suggestions. Students learn faster when they are teachers, and they rarely listen to any adult explaining how to use equipment. I also believe in the importance of "reading" texts of the type one is planning to compose before diving into the project. Asking students to find multimodal compositions could be an interesting assignment and might—gasp!—result in extra learning, as they will probably need to watch more than one video to find a good one and will want to wow their classmates with the wackiest/funniest video. Again, pre-screening is important for a high school classroom.
One interesting thought that Selfe shares is that "the less a teacher confesses to knowing about multimodal composing and digital composing tools, the more completely students feel able to invest their own time" (97). Students enjoy being the experts, and this takes quite a bit of pressure off the teacher. Selfe explained before that it was not necessary for the instructor to know everything about technology to undertake these types of compositions, but the concept that appearing to be an expert can actually be a detriment to student performance diffuses the anxiety a teacher might feel when beginning an experiment with multimodal composition.v
Finally, Selfe mentions at the end of chapter five that students benefit from "informal opportunities in which they analyze their own projects" (62). It is very important for students to have this practice time without the pressure of being graded and with time to make changes and adjustments based on peer feedback. Furthermore, peer feedback is more likely to be helpful with these types of assignments. If the fast-paced college schedule allowed time for peer feedback in our first project before presenting, we might have been able to solve problems that individual groups had due to knowledge gaps. My group had trouble with timing our slides and layering sound, which I'm sure others would have been able to assist us with (as they demonstrated competence with these issues in their own videos). Additionally, working on a complex project that requires revision after revision, it can become difficult to see what impression the project leaves on the first-time viewer. Feedback can put the author(s) back in touch with what they have created.
So, is it likely then that Edmodo would be allowed in the classroom where Facebook is not? I'm wondering, however, how engaged students would be with something like Edmodo? What do you think?
ReplyDeleteYou raise an interesting point here from Shipka, and I think the mindset here is very similar to what happened when word processing and personal computers were introduced into the writing curriculum. Since it is much easier to physically write with a word processor (copy, paste, move text around, etc.) than it is with pen and paper or with a typewriter, the automatic assumption was that students would become better writers. Obviously, that was not the case.
The same thing could be said of tools used for producing multimodal assignments. Giving students access to them and encouraging their use doesn't mean that students are going to use them successfully or appropriately, without guidance and instruction.
Laura,
ReplyDeleteI had never heard of Edmodo until reading your post. And I can see how it would be more readily accepted in classrooms considering all we've discussed about the mandatory and imposed supervision on students' social spaces.
I wonder if even if it does begin to be used more consistently in classrooms for teachers to connect to their students in place of facebook and other social networking sites--if this perhaps would be seen and felt by students as just another form of monitoring. Especially since they can't sign up without a teacher generated code. However, if it's strictly used for just assignments/notifications/supplementary notes/etc, then maybe (hopefully) it won't be felt as another restriction.
Actually I think it's an excellent tool after going through the site's tutorial. It looks,just like you said, suspiciously like facebook--and maybe the proper term to use isn't "acceptable" when describing the interactions between students and teachers through it, but more like covering all of the bases feared by most educators & administrators when they do interact with their students through social networks. I just hope that all of this pushing of using online spaces such as facebook/edmodo/moodle, doesn't cause students to see it as "just for school" or turn them off of what they already do regularly in regard to socializing and communicating their ideas with these digital tools.
I really like the format of Edmodo. It feels like facebook. It has many of the same features which is why I think it is so accessible. I would consider using this in my composition course next semester for weekly journal prompts and writing activities. However, I still do not believe that school admin would allow the use of this site for the high school. Although it is safe from any outside forces, students can still make inappropriate comments that could be seen by the rest of the class. Anything in print becomes dangerous for school corporations. However, I feel the benefits of a social networking site like Edmodo far outweigh the risks.
ReplyDeleteHey Laura, This is what i think is so interesting about this project: "Just having video, audio, or other resources available does not ensure the types of higher level thinking that could potentially be associated with these types of composition. It is interesting because students are using, in my opinion, a much higher level of abstract thinking. I mean, who would ever think about the delivery before?? I never did. when I composed I just thought of a hypothetical audience that was just going to read it and hopefully like it. however, i never considered the conditions and ways in which my hypothetical audience would experience my writing. Very interesting.
ReplyDeleteKelly--Since teachers can set up notifications for all student comments and additions, inappropriate material could be removed quite quickly. Edmodo provides privacy documentation that, combined with the existing policy for Acceptable Internet Use, and parent permission form could provide the sort of legal support necessary to keep within the law while still allowing students to utilize this type of technology. The site is well-designed to give teachers power over the content posted and the members of the page and objectionable posts, members, etc, can be erased or expelled with ease. Just like Internet use in the library, this is a priviledge, and subject to school rules.
ReplyDeletePeter--I do think that students can make wonderful rhetorical choices with multimodal compositions because they've experienced so many of them. This can come almost "naturally," much as ease with grammar often comes to those who are avid readers. Although instruction will still be necessary, students will unconsciously make stronger decisions with these media with which they are familiar than they would have made with a traditional essay which has no connection to or bearing on their real lives.
MaryAnn--I think that we will never have something that can be both "safe" and a natural part of students' lives (at least at the high school level). At the college level, where the students are legally adults, much of the difficulties are diminished, as each is responsible for his/her content. l
Edmodo's similiarities in appearance to Facebook would make it more appealing and user-friendly for students. Although they would regard it as an educational-only space, it still could be a great place for students to connect and perform the types of collaboration we've been reading about. I would rather have an Edmodo account and a Facebook account as a student myself, because this separation reminds me of the types of content that are appropriate to post on each. Students aren't likely to log in and out of separate Facebook accounts just for school any more often. Even worse, they might use a single Facebook account for both purposes!
Prof Mabrito--
ReplyDeleteWithout Shipka's "Heads-up" reflections, judging student learning could become quite difficult. In order to determine what students have learned from their multimodal composing experiences, the educator needs to be aware of the path the learner took to arrive at his/her destination. Teaching students to learn to write about their thought processes about learning could prove to be a challenging task, however.
It's probably best to never let your students know that you know as much as you do, then you can surprise them! Kinda kidding.But,if what she says is true then that's a pretty darn good thing because truly technology evolves daily and maybe some of the pioneers of the technical revolution/ evolution are keeping up with SOME of the newest advances, but I don't know that there is an omniscient cyber warlock...what do you think...
ReplyDeleteLaura & Peter,
ReplyDeleteI also picked up on the comment--"Just having video, audio, or other resources available does not ensure the types of higher level thinking that could potentially be associated with these types of composition. Instead, metacognition seems to be the key to Shipka's success with her students' projects."--as the most intriguing. And, like Peter, I believe that thinking about presentation makes me think much more about rhetorical choices. As you mentioned Laura, thinking rhetorically almost "comes naturally" to students when they are thinking about multiple modalities. However, it is very difficult for students to understand when they are writing written essays. Of course, this is to be expected. Each semester, I have my students watch a section from the movie "The Witches" to identify rhetorical appeals. In such a movie, it's impossible to mistake the grandmother's frightening tone and the scared appearance of the little girl in the painting. However, just as its easier to confuse the tone of a text of IM than a phone call or face-to-face meeting, students sometimes have trouble seeing sarcasm, etc. when they read written text. For this reason, I do think there is value in multimodal composing alone. However, Laura, I do agree that Shipka's focus on reflection and the writing process are what set her assignments apart as truly wonderful exercises in rhetoric.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe first comment was removed because I copied and pasted the comment I left on GoPeter's blog accidentally.
ReplyDelete“Asking students to find multimodal compositions could be an interesting assignment and might—gasp!—result in extra learning, as they will probably need to watch more than one video to find a good one and will want to wow their classmates with the wackiest/funniest video. Again, pre-screening is important for a high school classroom.”
I think you made an important point. Students are highly motivated by the opinions of their friends and this might be used to our advantage. I think there’s value in allowing students to bring anything that they like into the classroom as long as it’s PG and does not take too much time away from classroom instruction. What better way to liven things up and stimulate the students?
About how Shipka argues that its the act of metacognition found in multimodal texts rather than the act of using the affordances of other texts, it seems like there are two schools of though regarding this kind of work in the things we have been reading. There's the idea that multimodal composition, web 2.0 now especially, is essential because it's become the default face of composition, then there's the idea that its the act of metacognition during these kinds of assignments particularly that is the main benefit to assigning them.
ReplyDeleteGood find on Edmoto by the way, it seems to fix a lot of the problems with using facebook in a high school setting while keeping a lot of its benefits. Although from what we've heard in class it seems a lot of districts would still have their problems.