Stuart Blythe. Practitioners normally adopt either an instrumental, substantive or critical theory of technology. These are theories of technology that have been developed by Andrew Feenberg.
Ø The instrumental theory places emphasis on the way in which the technology is used. Technology is viewed as a tool that does not necessarily alter practice. Those who apply this theory to online tutoring may argue that it replicates f2f tutoring and may focus on how the technology is used and not on how it may alter the student-tutor relationship.
Ø The substantive theory, in contrast posits that the technology fundamentally alters practice. Those who apply it to writing center practice argue that online tutoring changes the nature of the student-tutor relationship.
Ø The critical theory of technology agrees that technology changes practice but maintains that technology users can determine what kind of practices they want and choose technology during the design phase that would support these practices. In so doing, they can use the technology in an instrumental way. After technologies are implemented, it is difficult to alter them or work against them, short of rejecting them outright. Hence it is essential that users of the technology influence its design.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Ways online tutoring supports writing center pedagogy
Ø Hobson. Those who support the creation of OWLs claim that they democratize writing centers, encourage collaboration, remove authority and enhance tutor training. OWLs support social constructivist practices which underpin the ideology of writing centers.
Ø Harris and Pemberton. Synchronous chat force students to reflect, in written form, on their writing. Such reflection is viewed as a feature of the successful f2f tutorial. Students can also save the transcript of their online conversation and refer back to it as they revise their draft.
Ø Because online texts contain fewer clues to the composing process, students who are reserved may be emboldened to join the discourse. In addition, stereotypes of race, gender, and ethnicity may be less likely to impact the discourse.
OWLs democratize writing center access making it easier for groups such as the physically disabled, the learning impaired, part-time students, those with jobs that make it difficult for them to visit the writing center, commuting students as well as those who may not be members of the particular academic community to access the services provided by writing centers
Ø Harris and Pemberton. Synchronous chat force students to reflect, in written form, on their writing. Such reflection is viewed as a feature of the successful f2f tutorial. Students can also save the transcript of their online conversation and refer back to it as they revise their draft.
Ø Because online texts contain fewer clues to the composing process, students who are reserved may be emboldened to join the discourse. In addition, stereotypes of race, gender, and ethnicity may be less likely to impact the discourse.
OWLs democratize writing center access making it easier for groups such as the physically disabled, the learning impaired, part-time students, those with jobs that make it difficult for them to visit the writing center, commuting students as well as those who may not be members of the particular academic community to access the services provided by writing centers
Ways online tutoring undermines writing center pedagogy
Ø Hobson. Enthusiasm for technological innovations may promote a hierarchy between writing centers on the basis of those that are technologically savvy and those that are not. This may give rise to exclusionary practices that run counter to the goals of the writing center community which aims to celebrate diversity.
Ø Writing centers may also come to be seen as redundant. Although not often posed, this is perhaps the most important question writing centers face as they “[wrestle] with the task of if and how it is possible to take the writing center online with its services and guiding philosophies and value systems intact” (482).
Ø Some OWLs that function merely as resource mediums that provide access to skills and mechanistic activities reinforce the idea that OWLs are grammar centers. This seems to reinforce current-traditional pedagogy that writing centers worked hard to distance themselves from. [This also reinforces the view of writing as an individual as opposed to social activity. The reason for the instrumental approach to technology may stem from the difficulty of updating and maintaining web pages and websites. It may be relatively easy to format a static web page but up keeping them proves to be time-consuming.] Hobson argues that this is misplaced energy in that there is no need for writing centers to create such sites for themselves when they can provide links to such sites.
Ø Harris and Pemberton. Online texts, because of the nature of print, may seemed imbued with more authority than is intended and may replicate current-traditionalist strategies of learning that writing centers seek to avoid. Moving online conversations away from a mere question/answer format to true collaborative discussion requires practice.
Ø The online environment makes it easier for students to appropriate tutor feedback as their own. This raises ethical issues of plagiarism.
Ø Writing centers may also come to be seen as redundant. Although not often posed, this is perhaps the most important question writing centers face as they “[wrestle] with the task of if and how it is possible to take the writing center online with its services and guiding philosophies and value systems intact” (482).
Ø Some OWLs that function merely as resource mediums that provide access to skills and mechanistic activities reinforce the idea that OWLs are grammar centers. This seems to reinforce current-traditional pedagogy that writing centers worked hard to distance themselves from. [This also reinforces the view of writing as an individual as opposed to social activity. The reason for the instrumental approach to technology may stem from the difficulty of updating and maintaining web pages and websites. It may be relatively easy to format a static web page but up keeping them proves to be time-consuming.] Hobson argues that this is misplaced energy in that there is no need for writing centers to create such sites for themselves when they can provide links to such sites.
Ø Harris and Pemberton. Online texts, because of the nature of print, may seemed imbued with more authority than is intended and may replicate current-traditionalist strategies of learning that writing centers seek to avoid. Moving online conversations away from a mere question/answer format to true collaborative discussion requires practice.
Ø The online environment makes it easier for students to appropriate tutor feedback as their own. This raises ethical issues of plagiarism.
OWLs and the instrumental theory of technology
Hall, Mark and Thia Wolf. “One Writing Center’s First Steps Onto the Web.” The Writing Lab Newsletter 28.3 (2003): 1-6. Oct. 2008
Ø These writers subscribe to the instrumental theory of technology. They argue that technology should extend but not alter practice. They created an OWL that was designed to extend, not change, the social constructionist based pedagogy upon which their writing center was based. This ensured that tutors could work in both f2f tutorials and online tutoring.
Ø They also added links to online resources such as the OED, and grammar and style manuals.
Ø They opted to use synchronous online tutoring for this better fits with the goals of writing center pedagogy, emphasizes a non-hierarchical environment and mimics the f2f conference. They view asynchronous tutoring as “a virtual ‘drop-off’ proofreading and editing service, in which students might simply e-mail papers to a tutor, and then receive a single written response” (3). These writers echo the view shared by many other theorists that synchronous tutorials are better able to promote writing center pedagogy.
Ø These writers subscribe to the instrumental theory of technology. They argue that technology should extend but not alter practice. They created an OWL that was designed to extend, not change, the social constructionist based pedagogy upon which their writing center was based. This ensured that tutors could work in both f2f tutorials and online tutoring.
Ø They also added links to online resources such as the OED, and grammar and style manuals.
Ø They opted to use synchronous online tutoring for this better fits with the goals of writing center pedagogy, emphasizes a non-hierarchical environment and mimics the f2f conference. They view asynchronous tutoring as “a virtual ‘drop-off’ proofreading and editing service, in which students might simply e-mail papers to a tutor, and then receive a single written response” (3). These writers echo the view shared by many other theorists that synchronous tutorials are better able to promote writing center pedagogy.
OWLs and the substantive theory of technology
Breuch, Lee-Ann Kastman. “Virtual Peer Review as ‘Remediation.’” Virtual Peer Review: Teaching and Learning About Writing in Online Environments. State Univ. of New York P: 2004. 7-35.
Ø Using Bolter and Grusin’s notion of remediation, Breuch applies it to electronic communication, specifically peer review, to ascertain the extent to which online peer review draws on or remediates f2f peer review. She defines virtual peer review “as the activity of [peers] using computer technology to exchange and respond to one another’s writing for the purpose of improving writing” (10).
Ø She concludes that while virtual peer review draws on the same theoretical principles as f2f peer review, in practice, there are fundamental differences. Virtual peer review is therefore “a remediation of face-to-face peer review in the sense that it emphasizes stark differences rather than similarities” placing emphasis on written communication over oral communication and highlighting the way in which “differences of time, space and interaction in Internet environments” affect response (8).
Ø It should not be taken for granted that the shift from f2f peer review to online peer review is natural and intuitive. Rather, in the same way in which f2f peer review is systematically taught, techniques of online peer review also need to be modeled. This view reflects the substantive theory of technology in that it emphasizes the way in which computers as a medium impact the online tutorial.
Ø Using Bolter and Grusin’s notion of remediation, Breuch applies it to electronic communication, specifically peer review, to ascertain the extent to which online peer review draws on or remediates f2f peer review. She defines virtual peer review “as the activity of [peers] using computer technology to exchange and respond to one another’s writing for the purpose of improving writing” (10).
Ø She concludes that while virtual peer review draws on the same theoretical principles as f2f peer review, in practice, there are fundamental differences. Virtual peer review is therefore “a remediation of face-to-face peer review in the sense that it emphasizes stark differences rather than similarities” placing emphasis on written communication over oral communication and highlighting the way in which “differences of time, space and interaction in Internet environments” affect response (8).
Ø It should not be taken for granted that the shift from f2f peer review to online peer review is natural and intuitive. Rather, in the same way in which f2f peer review is systematically taught, techniques of online peer review also need to be modeled. This view reflects the substantive theory of technology in that it emphasizes the way in which computers as a medium impact the online tutorial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
