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.
OWLs and the critical theory of technology
Thomas, Sharon, Danielle DeVoss and Mark Hara. “Toward a Critical Theory of Technology and Writing.” The Writing Center Journal. 19.1 (1998): 73-86.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
