Ø These writers outline the way in which their writing center, after first using both an instrumental and then a substantive theory of technology, finally opted for an approach that embraced a critical theory of technology.
Ø They first established an OWL that acted primarily as a resource site, and then they began to engage in asynchronous online consulting via email, and eventually synchronous online tutoring in the form of chat rooms.
Ø Both types of tutoring disrupted pedagogical practices. The dialogue that is crucial to tutoring was absent in the first type of tutorial and prevented tutors from assessing student response while the dialogue in synchronous tutorials tended to be one-sided. This undermined the writer-centered/directed conference that informed this center’s pedagogy.
Consequently, they stopped online tutoring.
Ø When a new technology initiative, that sought to facilitate the passing of information, was implemented on their campus these writers sought to adapt this technology and make it a part of their student-directed pedagogy by encouraging dialogue and inviting students into the work of the academic community. The writing center conducted sessions on how to use the technology such as email, MOOs, MUDs and chat rooms, to extend class discussion and support student writing. They also taught students to use the Internet to conduct research and publish on the web.
Ø The writing center’s success in this endeavor led to the creation of an Internet Writing Consultant program that was designed to offer support to students and staff interested in web publishing. IWCs had difficulty integrating writing center goals with their online practices and sessions became overly directive. The computer also intruded as a medium with some consultants feeling as though they needed to teach computer skills before they could address issues related to content.
Ø To combat this, they met f2f with students, established the goals of the session then moved to the computer. This provided an alternative to a simple outright rejection or acceptance of the technology. Using technology to invite students into academic dialogue worked so well, it altered teaching practice which became more interactive and student centered.
Ø Technology supported the student focused writing center pedagogy. It was not used simply to ascertain student knowledge but was also used to provide an avenue for them to enter into academic discourse and highlight their abilities and potential.
Ø These writers conclude that while writing centers may not be able to shape the technology they can “shape the design of the instruction that accompanies that technology so that the instruction is congruent with [their] particular pedagogy” (84). This experiment indicates that OWLs may need to adopt a hybrid approach to tutoring in which f2f and online tutoring are combined in the same session. It also indicates that the critical theory of technology can be extremely useful in integrating technology into writing center pedagogy.
Yergeau, Melanie, Kathryn Wozniak, and Peter Vandenberg. “Expanding the Space of f2f: Writing Centers and Audio-Visual-Textual Conferencing.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy. 13.1 (Fall 2008)
Ø These writers explore the benefits of synchronous audio-video-textual conferencing (AVT), arguing that it not only provides the benefits of the f2f tutorial (in that it allows for paralinguistic communication which is not present in other forms of online tutorials) but that it also takes advantage of features of the online environment, which are not present in the f2f tutorial, such as the possibilities for real-time modeling and web-based referencing. AVT is thus a viable alternative to f2f and email tutoring.
Ø They apply Bolter and Grusin’s “double logic of remediation” to the AVT arguing that they are both transparent and opaque. AVTs are transparent in their simulation of the f2f tutorial but opaque in that there is interaction with the hypermediated interface (dragging the mouse, closing and opening text etc.). The f2f tutorial in some ways remediates the AVT. In addition, the blurring of the line between the public and private spaces that occur in AVTs may help those students with a high degree of comfort with the technology, their space and the consultant to take greater ownership of the session. Conversely, students who are uncomfortable with any of these elements may relinquish authority in the session.
Ø In keeping with the critical theory of technology, these writers argue that AVT should not be viewed merely as a tool. Instead, they recommend that writing centers consider their resources and design their own technologies by mixing and matching various applications as they attempt to meet their needs.
Ø AVTs complicate the debate about asynchronous versus synchronous online communication. They indicate that technology is developing to a point it is possible to combine elements of both types of online conferencing as well as elements of the f2f tutorial. This underscores the increasing relevance of the critical theory of technology.
No comments:
Post a Comment