The benefits of a digital pedagogy

The articles we read on digital learning environments made me realize a few things about the benefits of using digital technology in pedagogy.

One of the benefits of using multimedia and digital spaces for instructing students is computers give them a better understanding of audience. Perhaps I’m being naïve and idealistic, but working on a computer seems like it gives students a more direct sense of purpose, and thus a better rhetorical grasp on the situation within which they work. Instead of educating students with things like textbooks, tools alien to a student’s world, it makes much more sense to educate them with tools intrinsic to their world, like computers.

Of course, saying computers are intrinsic to a student’s world makes certain assumptions about socioeconomic status and accessibility. Not everyone has access to a computer at home or at school. However, that does not negate the relevance of computers. Computers scan groceries at the store, control air traffic, and are present in a multitude of other aspects in the general public’s life. There is something about knowing computers that gives students a sense of power. Since computers affect so many aspects of their world, understanding and working on computers gives students a sense of control, regardless of their background.

Miller and Shepherd were on to something but then dropped it

While it was a bit unfocused and reached no applicable conclusion, I appreciated the Miller & Shepherd article we read this week. The article starts off with some very perceptive anecdotes about how current events prepared culture for blogs. I think the stories about Princess Diana, Bill Clinton, and Monica Lewinsky demonstrated well the cultural climate that allowed private stories to thrive. We were learning private things about public individuals, while private individuals became public. This phenomenon is certainly not exclusive to the nineties, but other big nineties stories fit this paradigm. Consider the extensive media coverage of the OJ Simpson trial, the rise of reality TV, and the Oklahoma City Bombing. It’s important to understand the implications of this type of cultural climate, because the generation we’re grading in 1301 grew up during this period. If we understand better the moral expectations and norms of the era, we might be able to instruct our students better.

What Miller & Shepherd’s article fails to consider, however, is the great force of collaborative learning as described by Bruffee and Trimbur. Blogs initiated this, but sites like Twitter and Facebook took it to another level. I believe the Internet instantiates collaborative learning, and redefines intellectual property. I bet an overwhelming majority of freshman are on Twitter and Facebook, asking their friends questions, sharing things they learned about Tech and Lubbock, and adding to the communal database of knowledge. I would like to read an essay that considered how the Internet encourages collaborative learning, and if it even does. If we understood that relationship better, freshman composition could take an exciting new turn.

Confessions of a 1301 document instructor

I am dying (metaphorically) grading freshman drafts this week. Wow. When I was grading their shorter work, I thought it wasn’t going to be bad grading just a few hundred more words. But these 1200 word first drafts are so deeply flawed that it takes me forever to press through one of them. It doesn’t help that they are the most boring things I’ve ever read. I often find myself going back and toning down my comments, because my initial comments reveal how irritated and bored I am. One student wrote about the emancipation proclamation being signed in 1963 and I wrote, “1963? So slavery was abolished right around the time the Beatles became popular? You should investigate this connection!” It was late and I was sick to death of grading at that point, but the next morning I regretted sending that comment. I intended it as a lighthearted way to remind the student to proofread, but the student probably thought I was an enormous smartass, and it could have hurt his or her feelings.

Reynold’s essay this week made me think about the social implications and messages I could potentially be sending students through my commentary. Am I making them feel inferior because I have more education than they do? Am I transmitting paternalistic and oppressive messages to students? Have I become The Man? As I briefly discussed in class, I’m a fan of feminism. I hate traditional gender roles because they limit the number of opportunities available to both women and men. Plus, I think gender roles are arbitrary and they don’t help society run more smoothly (other norms, like “don’t hurt people” increase human civility, and I appreciate those). I also believe that people are equal, regardless of their education level, gender, religious beliefs, etc. Each person has a voice, and a right to their own voice (as long as they don’t hurt people). I think it’s important to perpetuate this worldview through my commentary. Elitist, smartass comments perhaps reinforce negative power structures that prevent students from having a voice.

Sorry about that Beatles comment, student. That was out of line on my part.