Blog 5

DeWitt, Scott Lloyd. “Out There on the Web: Pedagogy and Identity in Face of Opposition.” Computers and Composition 14.2 (1997): 229-243. ScienceDirect. Web. 14 Nov. 2010.

In Scott DeWitt’s article “Out There on the Web: Pedagogy and Identity in Face of Opposition,” DeWitt conducts a study where he interviews gay/lesbian/bisexual (g/l/b) students who are writing on the internet in order to learn about their experiences and how they constructed their identity in a digital context. DeWitt explains that “internalized resistance to being gay fostered by one’s community, occupation, and relationships make coming out forbidding” (231). This raises a whole host of questions in relation to identity as societal views of g/l/b people are not always positive, and negotiating identity in a virtual environment can be extremely frightening due to the potential for hostile responses from a web audience. As a composition instructor at a university, DeWitt notes that he tries to “provide a safe, inviting space in [his] writing classroom for [his] students to talk about sexual orientation as critical subject and as personal experience” (232). However, the web and DeWitt’s composition classroom are two different spaces especially in terms of comfort level because as DeWitt points out “the size of the audience and the potential for confrontation, bashing, and attacks on free speech increase dramatically” in the virtual environment (234). DeWitt explains that he asked the g/l/b participants in his study some questions and subsequently asked them to take him on a tour of their website (234).

I would recommend this article to scholars and my peers in the field because although DeWitt cannot draw a “universal truth” or any generalizable conclusions with thirteen participants, his study does shed light on the identity issues g/l/b students face when composing in a digital context. His study reveals the importance of audience and how g/l/b people choose to identity themselves when composing online for that large (and usually unknown) audience. Because my research project focuses on second language writers’ rhetorical decisions and construction of identity on Facebook, DeWitt’s study is extremely relevant to the work I am doing. This study also offers wider pedagogical implications in terms of the differences/similarities in identity formation in a physical or virtual space and questions the instructor’s role in guiding students in this technological age with respect to professional, personal, and academic development (see DeWitt 242). Because Facebook is an extremely popular social networking site, do L2 writers feel more or less comfortable when constructing a webpage and essentially constructing their identity online? What kinds of rhetorical decisions are L2 writers making on social networking sites like Facebook, and how are these decisions affecting both the writer’s creation of identity (or intent) and the audience’s perception?

Blog 4

Williams, Bronwyn. “What South Park Character Are You?: Popular Culture, Literacy, and Online Performances of Identity.” Computers and Composition 25.1 (2008): 24-39. ScienceDirect. Web. 19 Oct. 2010.

In “What South Park Character Are You?: Popular Culture, Literacy, and Online Performances of Identity,” Bronwyn Williams reads through university students MySpace and Facebook pages in order to better understand and discuss popular culture and construction of identity in a digital context. Williams explains that “the performance of identity is obviously always a social phenomenon” (27). He goes on to point out that “the use of popular culture images to create a personal web page may have a global audience who know nothing else about the creator of the page;” however, students using social networking sites “expect friends to make judgments and comments about their choice of songs, images, and video” (Williams 28). The interactive nature of digital technologies allows anyone with access to create, reshape, or repurpose a variety of multimodal texts and share the production with an audience. Williams points out that “the intersection of media technologies and popular culture practices converge to create new concepts of performing identity” but when an audience member encounters a web page, they might not understand the text(s) the way the author originally intended (30). After speaking with one student, Williams explains “students like Tony understand that while they may be constructing an identity for their friends, the nature of the online text is that it is extended to an audience that is beyond the knowledge and beyond the control of the writer of the page (33). Despite the fact that they may be misunderstood or certain texts may not be interpreted the way the students intended, it is evident students are thinking about how to convey a certain message to their audience and making rhetorical decisions in order to ensure their web page reflects who they are.

An image of a South Park character on a student’s web page could be interpreted in a variety of ways depending on the audience member’s knowledge (or lack of) of the television show. One student has a picture of Kyle (a South Park character) on his page, and Williams suggests how “we might see Mitchell’s posting of the image on the page as in some way a sincere reflection of the identity he is constructing” (35). I would recommend this article to scholars and my peers in the field because the interviews Williams conducted with university students shed light on multiple issues in terms of digital writing. He argues that students’ literacy practices in an online context are heavily influenced by popular culture. This article informs my research project as I am interested in L2 writers’ construction of identity in a digital context as well as the rhetorical decisions they make when developing their Facebook pages. This study has wider pedagogical implications because as digital technologies continue to grow, a majority of students will encounter multimedia and multimodal texts; in fact, they will most likely be consumers and producers. Therefore, it is essential we continue to ask questions, conduct research, and report findings as students’ literacy practices evolve in the classroom as well as online.

Blog 3

Shin, Dong-shin and Tony Cimasko. “Multimodal Composition in a College ESL Class: New Tools, Traditional Norms.” Computers and Composition 25.4 (2008): 376-395. ScienceDirect. Web. 19 Sep. 2010.

Shin and Cimasko equate writing to designing and discuss how “the process of designing...is not only a matter of individual choice but is also a representation of cultural, social, and discursive values and norms” (377). Drawing upon Jewitt’s work, Shin and Cimasko note that “writers synthesize different modes of meaning, and intermingled modes of representation mutually sustain one another and generate new meanings” (378). Shin and Cimasko’s study looks at how ESL students in a freshman composition classroom employ multiple modes of representation in a digital context. In addition, Shin and Cimasko explain that they seek to examine how L2 writers make meaning or build understanding within the academy in terms of a specific assignment like the argument. In the beginning of the semester, students were asked to design a web page, and then for the final project, the instructor “explicitly required that students craft their arguments into fully realized web pages, hypermedia documents that could not be replicated in non-digital print” (Shin and Cimasko 380). The composition instructor “pointed out in one class discussion that successful arguments, such as advertisements featuring photographs and little to no writing, can be made through primarily non-linguistic modes” (Shin and Cimasko 381). Using the New London Group’s model “as a heuristic for understanding the design elements that make up different modes of meaning in multimodal texts, such as web pages,” Shin and Cimasko analyzed the students’ projects using “the five modes of meaning – linguistic design, visual design, audio design, spatial design, and gestural design” (381). Shin and Cimasko found that students tended to give the linguistic mode greater authority and were hesitant to include other modes when designing the text because the linguistic mode is seemingly prevalent in academic discourse.

I would recommend this article to scholars and my peers in the field because Shin and Cimasko’s study reveals the importance of expectations within the various discourse communities. The students in this particular study upheld the conventional writing practices of the academic discourse community and chose to use the linguistic mode more than other modes despite the fact that the project description required (and the instructor encouraged) use of non-linguistic modes. Shin and Cimasko point out that “the students were actively attempting to construct suitable academic identities through their texts and may have found it easier and more beneficial to assimilate to the perceived linear, print-based standards” (390). My research project focuses on L2 writers’ construction of identity in a digital context as well as the rhetorical decisions L2 writers make when developing their Facebook pages. Although Shin and Cimasko’s article focused on L2 writers developing web pages in an academic context, it is extremely relevant to the work I am doing. This study offers wider pedagogical implications in terms of multimodal composition in the classroom and questions the dominance of the linguistic mode in academic discourse. Because Facebook is a social networking site, do L2 writers feel more comfortable employing multiple modes of meaning? If yes, what kinds of rhetorical decisions do L2 writers make, and how can instructors develop and/or alter courses to accommodate multimodal composition?

Blog 2

DePew, K.E., and Susan Miller-Cochran. “Social Networking in a Second Language:
Engaging Multiple Literate Practices through Identity Composition.” L2
Identity in the Twenty-First Century. Retrieved from Blackboard. Web. 24 Sep.
2010.

In “Social Networking in a Second Language: Engaging Multiple Literate Practices through Identity Composition,” DePew and Miller-Cochran discuss how “social networking sites offer a unique window into the emerging multiliteracies of L2 writers, especially the ways in which these writers compose their identities through multiple literate practices” and argue “that L2 students’ Web 2.0 texts can serve as a useful medium for understanding the ways in which they compose their identities and the complex literate practices they are developing while doing so” (274). DePew and Miller-Cochran conduct a study in order to find out more about “how L2 student writers are actually using Web 2.0 programs to compose their identities” and to determine if there is a “reciprocal relationship between the identity composing strategies they use for the writing done in these online social contexts and writing done for other contexts, such as the academy” (277). In addition, they were interested in how audiences were responding to the L2 writers’ online texts (Depew and Miller-Cochran 277). With DeWitt’s case studies serving as a model, DePew and Miller-Cochran asked three L2 students “for a guided tour through the Web 2.0 texts that they had composed” (278). They also inquired about “choices to include certain features (e.g. pictures, videos, widgets) to get a sense of how the participants saw these features influencing how others perceived them” (DePew and Miller-Cochran 278).

I would recommend this article to my peers or scholars in the field because DePew and Miller-Cochran do a good job articulating the possible influence of L2 students’ Web 2.0 writing in the academy as well as how academic writing might affect the way they compose online. DePew and Miller-Cochran point out that Web 2.0 writing may not be valued in academic institutions and note in the conclusion that “although [the] three participants [in the study] do not perceive that their social networking literacy practices affect how they write for academic institutions and vice versa, [DePew and Miller-Cochran] believe that further examination… might still present important implications for other writing contexts” (290). Because digital writing is quickly becoming the norm and the relationship between writing on social networking sites like Facebook and academic writing has not been thoroughly explored, DePew and Miller-Cochran’s article stays relevant. Many of the questions they pose in their article’s conclusion remain unanswered, and as digital spaces evolve, this will only augment the questions in the field. DePew and Miller-Cochran’s three case studies “provide rich data regarding how the participants represent themselves visually, textually, and aurally in each space and how they are represented by (and their identities are likewise influenced by) others” (289). The technological advances of today will be obsolete before tomorrow; thus, it is imperative for writing researchers, digital writing researchers, and L2 writing researchers to continue to investigate a variety of digitally social contexts that impact L2 writers’ identity construction, literacy practices, and discursive activities.

Metaphor Entry

“Intel ‘Lunch Room’ 2010 Super Bowl XLIV Commercial Ad.” 2010 Feb. 4. YouTube. 18 Sep. 2010.

Macek, Jakub. “Defining Cyberculture.” Média a realita. Trans. Monika Metyková and Jakub Macek. Masaryk University Press: 2004. Posted on Blackboard.

I chose a thirty-two second YouTube video for my metaphor entry called “Intel ‘Lunch Room’” where a man is discussing the new 2010 Intel Core Processor with two of his co-workers. He is adamant that the processor is “the most amazing technological achievement in the history of the company.” A robot named Jeffery is walking up to the lunch table and overhears the conversation. His entire head looks down towards the ground, and he drops his lunch tray visibly upset by the discussion. As he is leaving the room, the woman he was “walking” with calls for him to come back. Obviously, this video is a commercial advertisement that advocates the use of the latest and greatest Intel processors by implying the processor is better than an intelligent robot with feelings; however, it also comments on the relationship between technology and humans.

Because Jeffrey has a lunch tray, this tells us he is an employee of the company; furthermore, his reaction to the man’s statement informs us that Jeffrey is also a product of the company. The man may no longer views Jeffrey in the same way because the company has improved its’ processors and developed something more technologically advanced. This concept mirrors that of our society because as technology advances, the evolution of our mechanical devices continues to grow as well. For example, the iphone 4 surpassed the technological capabilities of the iphone 3GS because of the ability to multitask, but I think we all know the release of the iphone 5 and/or subsequent phones will outdo all previous models. In terms of technology, societal standards continue to rise, and it is inevitable that robots like Jeffrey or phones like the iphone 3GS will be left behind.

The metaphor in this advertisement implies that Jeffrey is not only capable of performing everyday human functions (i.e. working at a company such as Intel, carrying a lunch tray with the intention of eating, etc.) but also possessing human characteristics (i.e. leaving the lunchroom when his feelings are hurt). Of course, this means that viewers of the ad must first accept Jeffrey's intellect and capacity to experience emotion. One man attempts to quiet the co-worker discussing the processor before Jeffrey gets near the table. Evidently, he cares that Jeffrey will overhear their conversation and anticipates the statement will hurt Jeffrey’s feelings. When Jeffrey leaves the room, the man who had been talking about the processor appears saddened by his lack of consideration for Jeffrey’s feelings, and the woman shows compassion as well. Macek discusses how early cyberculture was a “story of the power of a new technology, which dramatically and fundamentally changes the world of humans” (2). The Intel advertisement does not provide us with some macabre war scene between humans and machines; instead, it shows an everyday occurrence at work (someone hurting the feelings of another).

After viewing this commercial for the third time, I began thinking about The Animatrix we watched in class because that had a lot to do with technology becoming sentient and the potentiality for life as we know it to change if machines were to acquire power over humans. Although Jeffrey was not physically analogous, the Intel advertisement got my attention because he was similar to a human being in every other way. Initially, it would seem that robots and humans have nothing in common; however, the Intel commercial suggests that machines with artificial intelligence could have feelings. This generates a whole host of ethical, moral, and social issues. If machines have artificial intelligence and feelings, would their rights be any different from the rights of humans? How would humans react to a robot with feelings? In the Intel ad, Jeffrey is not a servant to humans as illustrated in The Animatrix; rather, he is seemingly working (and eating lunch) beside humans as they attempt to achieve the goals of a company. There is no power struggle here; in fact, the scene hints at a future where humans and robots will be capable of a symbiotic relationship.

Blog 1

Yi, Youngjoo. “Adolescent Multilingual Writers Transitions Across In-and Out-of-School Writing Contexts.” Journal of Second Language Writing 19.1 (2010): 17-32. Science Direct. Web. 10 Sep. 2010.

     In Youngjoo Yi’s article “Adolescent Multilingual Writers Transitions Across In- and-Out-of-School Writing Contexts,” Yi conducts a study that “focuses on a Korean immigrant high school student, Jihee” and the relationship “between her voluntary, non-academic writing outside school and her academic writing” (17).  Yi expounds on “a growing body of research [that] has explored multiple literacies or multiliteracies and paid more attention to out-of-school settings to examine reading, writing, and language use as social practices” (18).  She offers two reasons for this rising interest.  First, she suggests that literacy researchers “have begun to see the value of understanding how students’ literate lives flourish outside the confines of formal schooling” (18).  Second, “some literacy scholars who are more sensitive to the issues of power with respect to ‘what counts as literacy and whose literacy counts’ have intentionally focused on non-academic, out-of-school literacy practices” (19).  Yi discusses a research study involving students “who saw academic writing activities as irrelevant and inauthentic literacy experiences;” however, both “voluntarily produced extensive writing outside school (e.g., poems, songs, rap lyrics, and plays)” (19).  Yi references another study where “L2 students who had difficulties with academic literacy . . . made a significant improvement in their English language and English writing skills through online literacy practices” (19).   

     While Yi acknowledges prior researchers’ contribution to the overall body of knowledge in the field, she argues that a majority of the researchers have overlooked students’ in-school writing practices and neglected to investigate the relationship between academic and non-academic writing practices.  Yi uses “a qualitative case approach so as to document possible links between Jihee’s in- and out-of-school writing practices” (20).   In order to triangulate data, Yi collected “participant observations . . . and field notes; interviews and transcripts . . . scribbles, notes, emails, and online chatting; samples of her academic writing. . .” (21).  Yi found that Jihee “blurred the distinction between the two types of writing rather than completely separate one from the other” (28).  In addition, Jihee’s “in-school writing practice shaped the topics or themes of her writing outside of school (e.g., diary writing, scribbling, and online chatting with her classmates)” (28).  Yi argues “that it is important to further examine the two-way street between in-school and out-of-school literacy practices, rather than separate one from the other or ignore     . . . out-of-school writing” (28).  

     I would recommend this article to my peers because as technology continues to grow, it goes without saying that the number of students writing in an online context is increasing.  This poses interesting pedagogical questions in terms of how students are using the knowledge they acquire outside the classroom to inform their in-class activities.  Because we are in a digital writing course, I wanted to read more about how Jihee used emails and online chatting (as well as what conclusions Yi drew from Jihee’s use of that particular context).  However, this article is extremely informative in terms of the transition from one context to another with respect to writing practices.