Journal Entry: Grant Writing and Kairos
The rhetorical nature of grant writing is reminiscent of certain aspects of the Sophistic Movement in classical rhetoric. During the fifth century B.C.E. in Greece, the Sophists were a group of individuals who studied culture, language, and were experts in the field of rhetoric. These men were often foreigners and were hired as speech writers, orators, and teachers due to the value placed on persuasive speaking in the developing democratic judicial and legislative systems. Sophistic rhetoric was generally characterized by using styles and language appropriate to a specific context to effectively persuade an audience towards the speaker’s argument. Students of this rhetoric were taught to argue both sides of an issue. This training in persuasive speaking enabled practical ends, thus advancing the motives and power of the speaker no matter the topic. In addition, Sophists rejected an absolute truth and instead, believed that knowledge and truth were contextual and developed through persuasive language or argumentation. Therefore, speakers were required to understand the culture, time, and circumstances of the issue at hand in order to construct and deliver effective persuasive arguments that could potentially mold truth (Bizzel and Herzberg; Herrick).
The concept of kairos stems from the Sophistic characteristics described above. The term kairos refers to a temporal and spatial concept. The temporal aspect is a moment in time characterized by a specific cultural context, audience, opportunity, and constraints that place demands on the rhetor and thereby molds his product so that he may succeed in his endeavor of persuasion. In turn, the rhetor can take advantage of and choose a particular moment and context, or the right time, to present an argument, thus increasing his likelihood for success in creating solutions for problems at hand and to enhance persuasion (Herrick 39; Bizzel and Herzberg 24; Miller 312).
Kairos also has a spatial component, described as an opening or opportunity. Specific contexts are imperfect or incomplete and therefore require action. The rhetor is able to identify or create these openings in a situation, convince the audience of the existence of the opportunity, and insert his argument or “conception of what needs to be done” (Miller 313). Taking both the temporal and spatial aspects of kairos into consideration, Eric White defines kairos as, “a passing instant when an opening appears which must be driven through with force if success is to be achieved” (13). Therefore, the rhetor is in a constant struggle and must successfully negotiate his motives between the restrictions placed and opportunities presented by a specific context at a given point in time.
Comprehension of the Sophistic Movement and the concept of kairos can augment the act of grant writing. The primary goal of a scientific grant writing is to construct an application that melds research interests with the demands of the agency in order to win funding. There are multiple steps required to achieve these ends. However, the more abstract and complicated steps can be understood through a framework informed by the concept of kairos including, choosing the correct funding opportunity and identifying need and significance for research.
The first step in acquiring external research grants is how to choose the right funding opportunity. The research topics funded by agencies depend on the cultural context at that given time. Political agendas, health initiatives, environmental concerns, social fads, and the economy are all factors that determine which topics are important and need further investigation in order to improve human existence. Funding agencies then release calls for proposals based on these social pressures. In turn, investigators must choose grants that align with their interests, with the realization that most opportunities will not perfectly match his or her ideal research endeavors. The idea that investigators often have to change their research goals to gain funding and survive and how to effectively achieve a good compromise between these goals and available funding are difficult notions to swallow.
Grant writing can use the temporal aspects of kairos to create a framework for understanding how to observe surrounding contexts to determine what research areas are “hot,” heavily funded, align with interests, or act as possible research alternatives. Instead of becoming a victim of agency directives, the author can learn to take advantage of existing funding opportunities to expand research interests in directions that may lead to increased funding and career success. In contrast, the author also learns the importance of timing and jumping on the perfect opportunity when it presents itself. The temporal aspect of kairos can empower the author to shape his motives to a given context or inform him to take advantage of the perfect opportunity when it occurs. This enables the author to choose the most appropriate funding opportunity that both increases the likelihood of winning the grant and enjoying the research endeavor itself.
The spatial aspect of kairos is of particular use when understanding how to begin developing the research plan in a grant application. Funding is awarded to grants that persuade reviewers by aligning with agency goals and demonstrating significance through an innovative solution to a clear and pertinent need. Researchers must therefore learn how to identify opportunity or space for their research. The concept of kairos can create a framework for this process by first informing authors that they need to understand the history and current context of their research interests as they apply to the grant opportunity. This can be completed through a thorough literature search. Second, authors must learn to identify gaps in knowledge exposed by the literature. Finally, researchers can understand that the literature provides evidence that is used to convince an audience that gaps exist and solutions are needed, thus creating a space for a their proposed solutions, or research. Ultimately, researchers can use kairos to inform the process of identifying and conveying the significance of their proposed work.
Certain rhetorical aspects of developing a winning grant proposal are abstract and difficult to understand. Even seasoned researchers struggle with the process by which one compromises research interests to find the best funding opportunity and how to create or identify a significant need for a research endeavor. Themes and concepts stemming from classical rhetoric such as kairos can assist in helping researchers grapple with these challenging obstacles.
References:
Bizzel, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Eds. Bizzel, Patricia and Bruce Herzberg. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin's, 2001. Print.
Herrick, James A. The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction. 4th Edition ed. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009. Print.
Miller, Carolyn R. "Kairos in the Rhetoric of Science." A Rhetoric of Doing: Essays on Written Discourse in Honor of James L. Kinneavy. Eds. Witte, Stephen P., Neil Nakadate and Roger D. Cherry. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992. Print.
White, Eric Charles. Kaironomia: On the Will-to-Invent. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987. Print.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Rhetorical Theory Annotation 2
Miller, Carolyn R. "Kairos in the Rhetoric of Science." A Rhetoric of Doing: Essays on Written Discourse in Honor of James L. Kinneavy. Eds. Witte, Stephen P., Neil Nakadate and Roger D. Cherry. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992. Print.
Miller discusses the relationship between science and kairos and how scientific discourse can be analyzed using this classical rhetoric concept. The author describes the concept kairos as having temporal and spatial components. The temporal aspect is described by a specific moment in time when a speech is given or discourse is written. This moment in time is characterized by a specific cultural context, audience, opportunity, and constraints that place demands on the rhetor and thereby mold his product so that he may succeed in his endeavor of persuasion. In turn, the rhetor can take advantage of and choose a particular moment and context, or the right time, to present an argument, thus increasing his likelihood for success in creating solutions for problems at hand and to enhance persuasion.
Kairos also has a spatial component, described as an opening or opportunity. Specific contexts are imperfect or incomplete and therefore require action. The rhetor is able to identify or create these openings in a situation, convince the audience of the existence of the opportunity, and insert his argument or “conception of what needs to be done” (Miller 313). Therefore, the rhetor is in a constant struggle and must successfully negotiate his motives between the restrictions placed and opportunities presented by a specific context at a given point in time.
Miller mentions Kuhn’s paradigm shifts and description of rhetoric of science and relates this to kairos by discussing how gaps in knowledge exist and research uses both timing and opportunity (temporal and spatial kairos) to progress. Scientific concepts develop by researchers continually finding solutions for new spaces. Ideas are then perpetuated by persuasive researchers that can effectively argue his or her stance. This process leads to our conceptualization of scientific truth. Miller also discusses how readers should consider context and timing when analyzing scientific discourse.
Miller raises an interesting point regarding the use of kairos in examining scientific discourse. This may prove useful is looking at grant writing, as this form of discourse is highly rhetorical, contextually driven, and temporal.
Miller discusses the relationship between science and kairos and how scientific discourse can be analyzed using this classical rhetoric concept. The author describes the concept kairos as having temporal and spatial components. The temporal aspect is described by a specific moment in time when a speech is given or discourse is written. This moment in time is characterized by a specific cultural context, audience, opportunity, and constraints that place demands on the rhetor and thereby mold his product so that he may succeed in his endeavor of persuasion. In turn, the rhetor can take advantage of and choose a particular moment and context, or the right time, to present an argument, thus increasing his likelihood for success in creating solutions for problems at hand and to enhance persuasion.
Kairos also has a spatial component, described as an opening or opportunity. Specific contexts are imperfect or incomplete and therefore require action. The rhetor is able to identify or create these openings in a situation, convince the audience of the existence of the opportunity, and insert his argument or “conception of what needs to be done” (Miller 313). Therefore, the rhetor is in a constant struggle and must successfully negotiate his motives between the restrictions placed and opportunities presented by a specific context at a given point in time.
Miller mentions Kuhn’s paradigm shifts and description of rhetoric of science and relates this to kairos by discussing how gaps in knowledge exist and research uses both timing and opportunity (temporal and spatial kairos) to progress. Scientific concepts develop by researchers continually finding solutions for new spaces. Ideas are then perpetuated by persuasive researchers that can effectively argue his or her stance. This process leads to our conceptualization of scientific truth. Miller also discusses how readers should consider context and timing when analyzing scientific discourse.
Miller raises an interesting point regarding the use of kairos in examining scientific discourse. This may prove useful is looking at grant writing, as this form of discourse is highly rhetorical, contextually driven, and temporal.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Rhetorical Theory Annotation 1
Rhetorical Theory
Bizzel, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. “Modern and Postmodern Rhetoric: Introduction.” The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Eds. Bizzel, Patricia and Bruce Herzberg. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin's, 2001. 1183-1205. Print.
Patricia Bizzel and Bruce Herzberg provide an overview of modern and post-modern rhetoric, discussing the history of the discipline as well as related prominent scholars through the twentieth century. Bizzel and Herzberg state that rhetoric is a, “theory of language as a form of social behavior, of intention and interpretation as the determinants of meaning, of the way that knowledge is created by argument, and of the way that ideology and power are extended through language… In short, rhetoric has become a comprehensive theory of language as effective discourse” (1183). Several scholars contributed to this developed idea of rhetoric including, I.A. Richards, Kenneth Burke, Mikhail Bakhtin, and Michael Foucault. Each scholar provided insight into how discourse or symbol systems lead to meaning.
Bizzel and Herzberg’s introduction provides a useful and brief overview of prominent scholars in modern and postmodern rhetoric, discussing developments in theory caused by each. This chapter is therefore an effective starting point for building a bibliography through its reading suggestions.
Bizzel, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. “Modern and Postmodern Rhetoric: Introduction.” The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Eds. Bizzel, Patricia and Bruce Herzberg. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin's, 2001. 1183-1205. Print.
Patricia Bizzel and Bruce Herzberg provide an overview of modern and post-modern rhetoric, discussing the history of the discipline as well as related prominent scholars through the twentieth century. Bizzel and Herzberg state that rhetoric is a, “theory of language as a form of social behavior, of intention and interpretation as the determinants of meaning, of the way that knowledge is created by argument, and of the way that ideology and power are extended through language… In short, rhetoric has become a comprehensive theory of language as effective discourse” (1183). Several scholars contributed to this developed idea of rhetoric including, I.A. Richards, Kenneth Burke, Mikhail Bakhtin, and Michael Foucault. Each scholar provided insight into how discourse or symbol systems lead to meaning.
Bizzel and Herzberg’s introduction provides a useful and brief overview of prominent scholars in modern and postmodern rhetoric, discussing developments in theory caused by each. This chapter is therefore an effective starting point for building a bibliography through its reading suggestions.
Initial Impressions of Rhetorical Theory
Journal Entry: Initial Impressions of Rhetorical Theory
Scientific grant writing is a highly rhetorical act. One locates a relevant grant to one’s research interests and composes a document that discusses a plan of action. This primary purpose of the document is to promote the advancement of the researcher’s self interests and appeal to a specific audience.
• The scientific researcher applies for grants to advance his or her career both monetarily and in prestige through scientific discovery, increased publications, improved laboratory facilities, and placement in higher academic or corporate positions. This reflects classical rhetorical theory, particularly in relation to the Sophists. Sophists taught rhetoric, or the art of persuasion, to students so that they might better defend themselves in court and pass laws or legislation in government. Sophistic rhetoric was focused on advancing the individual’s self gain through persuasive speech (Bizzel and Herzberg 22) much like scientific grants through written discourse.
• Grants are written with an intimate knowledge of one’s audience. These documents try to persuade the reviewers towards funding the project. This is accomplished by crafting the topic and content so that they are in line with the reviewers’ and agency’s goals and interests. The terminology and references are chosen to reflect the disciplines of the reviewers. The significance of the research is tailored to appeal to the emotions and needs of the reviewers. Again, this is reminiscent of classical rhetoric and follows the idea that one can create an effective and persuasive argument directed at a specific audience through invention, arrangement, style, and forms of delivery (Bizzel and Herzberg 3).
• Grants comprise a specific type of scientific discourse and may play a role in the creation of meaning. Funding and perpetuation of specific grants through persuasive writing can further the acceptance of a scientific theory. This reflects the concept of paradigm shifts and can lead to an agreed upon meaning or understanding of a scientific phenomenon, thus creating new knowledge or what we see as truth (Kuhn).
Grant writing is clearly a rhetorical act. However, how does interdisciplinarity tie in? Each discipline has its own values, context, audiences, and goals. How can an interdisciplinary team effectively come together and meld different cultures to write a single document that in turn, appeals to an interdisciplinary audience?
References:
Bizzel, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Eds. Bizzel, Patricia and Bruce Herzberg. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin's, 2001. Print.
Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Second Edition, Enlarged ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970. Print.
Scientific grant writing is a highly rhetorical act. One locates a relevant grant to one’s research interests and composes a document that discusses a plan of action. This primary purpose of the document is to promote the advancement of the researcher’s self interests and appeal to a specific audience.
• The scientific researcher applies for grants to advance his or her career both monetarily and in prestige through scientific discovery, increased publications, improved laboratory facilities, and placement in higher academic or corporate positions. This reflects classical rhetorical theory, particularly in relation to the Sophists. Sophists taught rhetoric, or the art of persuasion, to students so that they might better defend themselves in court and pass laws or legislation in government. Sophistic rhetoric was focused on advancing the individual’s self gain through persuasive speech (Bizzel and Herzberg 22) much like scientific grants through written discourse.
• Grants are written with an intimate knowledge of one’s audience. These documents try to persuade the reviewers towards funding the project. This is accomplished by crafting the topic and content so that they are in line with the reviewers’ and agency’s goals and interests. The terminology and references are chosen to reflect the disciplines of the reviewers. The significance of the research is tailored to appeal to the emotions and needs of the reviewers. Again, this is reminiscent of classical rhetoric and follows the idea that one can create an effective and persuasive argument directed at a specific audience through invention, arrangement, style, and forms of delivery (Bizzel and Herzberg 3).
• Grants comprise a specific type of scientific discourse and may play a role in the creation of meaning. Funding and perpetuation of specific grants through persuasive writing can further the acceptance of a scientific theory. This reflects the concept of paradigm shifts and can lead to an agreed upon meaning or understanding of a scientific phenomenon, thus creating new knowledge or what we see as truth (Kuhn).
Grant writing is clearly a rhetorical act. However, how does interdisciplinarity tie in? Each discipline has its own values, context, audiences, and goals. How can an interdisciplinary team effectively come together and meld different cultures to write a single document that in turn, appeals to an interdisciplinary audience?
References:
Bizzel, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Eds. Bizzel, Patricia and Bruce Herzberg. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin's, 2001. Print.
Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Second Edition, Enlarged ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970. Print.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Dissertation Topic and Objective
Journal Entry: Dissertation Topic and Objectives
The time for a dissertation topic is approaching and I have an idea that is continuing to grow. I plan to use the next three months to examine my topic in relation to the various facets of rhetorical and genre theories in an effort to choose a specific theoretical framework that will assist in my dissertation design, provide insight into my topic, and potentially offer solutions to problems posed.
Dissertation topic:
Interdisciplinary Scientific Grant Writing
Working Title:
Interdisciplinary Grant Writing: Finding Alternative Methods to Effective Communication between Team Members other than using the Grant Writer as a Translator
Problem:
Interdisciplinary grant writing is increasingly requested and funded by agencies including the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health. However, development of these grants is challenging and often dependent on effective communication between collaborators from varied scientific disciplines. Barriers to this communication include differences in disciplinary paradigms, ethos, argumentation, and technical language. Few collaborators change their communication strategies and instead depend on a translator, or the grant writer, to effectively communicate. Therefore, a better understanding of interdisciplinary grant writing is necessary to identify strategies and improve written communication between collaborators.
Potential Research Aims:
1. Define or describe effective written communication between scientific disciplines in a grant writing context
2. Determine the aids and hindrances to effective communication between scientific disciplines in a grant writing context.
3. What are the perceived barriers to written communication in each department?
4. Can increased comprehension of one written document be achieved across multiple departments?
5. How does an interdisciplinary audience affect the revision process?
Significance of Research:
1. Existing lack of research on topic
2. Need for improved interdisciplinary writing and communication strategies due to observed lack of success and increase in demand for this type of grant submission
The time for a dissertation topic is approaching and I have an idea that is continuing to grow. I plan to use the next three months to examine my topic in relation to the various facets of rhetorical and genre theories in an effort to choose a specific theoretical framework that will assist in my dissertation design, provide insight into my topic, and potentially offer solutions to problems posed.
Dissertation topic:
Interdisciplinary Scientific Grant Writing
Working Title:
Interdisciplinary Grant Writing: Finding Alternative Methods to Effective Communication between Team Members other than using the Grant Writer as a Translator
Problem:
Interdisciplinary grant writing is increasingly requested and funded by agencies including the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health. However, development of these grants is challenging and often dependent on effective communication between collaborators from varied scientific disciplines. Barriers to this communication include differences in disciplinary paradigms, ethos, argumentation, and technical language. Few collaborators change their communication strategies and instead depend on a translator, or the grant writer, to effectively communicate. Therefore, a better understanding of interdisciplinary grant writing is necessary to identify strategies and improve written communication between collaborators.
Potential Research Aims:
1. Define or describe effective written communication between scientific disciplines in a grant writing context
2. Determine the aids and hindrances to effective communication between scientific disciplines in a grant writing context.
3. What are the perceived barriers to written communication in each department?
4. Can increased comprehension of one written document be achieved across multiple departments?
5. How does an interdisciplinary audience affect the revision process?
Significance of Research:
1. Existing lack of research on topic
2. Need for improved interdisciplinary writing and communication strategies due to observed lack of success and increase in demand for this type of grant submission
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Teaching Philosophy
Teaching Philosophy for Clients from Science-based Academia and Industry
Grant writing is a challenging and often necessary endeavor in current academic and professional environments. As an instructor in grant writing, I draw upon my past education, work, funding experience, and my continued learning to design and enrich each workshop. I am a classically trained physiologist, with five years of experience in basic research labs. This is where I initially learned the significance and challenges of grant writing. Five additional years focusing on grant writing, mediating collaborations, workshop instruction, and graduate coursework in professional writing broadened my funding expertise and developed a specific workshop style.
Transference and applicability: Grant writing is a time intensive task that is often done in addition to a full work-load. Realizing the time constraints felt by employees, I value effective and efficient transference of knowledge over all else. Therefore, my grant writing workshops focus on transferability of skills by combining a lecture, discussion, and hands-on work using the clients’ own grants. The combination of my expertise, overt instruction, and situated learning promotes effective acquisition and transference of skills by allowing clients to learn within a community of practice (New London Group; Lave and Wenger). The overt instruction covers topics such as locating grant opportunities, common and disciplinary techniques required for writing and development, and technological concerns for successful submission. This knowledge is then immediately put into practice using the client’s own work, allowing employees to actively learn, reinforce knowledge, improve current or future grants, and maximize time-management.
Collaboration: The development of most grants depends on successful collaboration and communication between members. In my experience, communication barriers can be the primary cause for a failed submission. Therefore, I highly value the skills required to effectively collaborate and therefore incorporate them into my workshops. Clients learn and practice problem-solving, different communication, personal and technological strategies to improve their own collaborations through discussion and the hands-on portion of the workshop.
Accessibility: I realize that grant writing is a long process and is learned through the act of doing. The workshop provides a strong foundational knowledge, however additional questions, concerns, or need for input will arise. Therefore, I believe in continued support for as long as necessary. Clients can access my support through email communication, in-house or on-line meetings, or follow-up focused workshops during normal business hours.
Assessment: The grant writing workshop is an evolving entity as it must keep abreast of the constant changes in funding environments, the economy, and academic and industry needs. Therefore, I value assessment as it allows me to continually improve my instructional design. I assess learning by observing the transformation of grant drafts through the writing process, successful submission, and funding rate. I assess efficacy and relevancy through client feedback, acquired by a post-workshop and subsequent post-grant submission questionnaire.
My teaching philosophy is based off multiple values including transferability, collaboration, accessibility, and improvement, all of which are in place to best serve my clients. I am a colleague, not a teacher and it is my goal to share as much of my experience and expertise with the clients as possible. Therefore, I strive to be approachable, informative, and efficient so that my clients can successfully develop, submit, and win grants.
References
Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Print.
The New London Group. “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.” Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. Ed. Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis. New York: Routledge, 2000. 9-37. Print.
Grant writing is a challenging and often necessary endeavor in current academic and professional environments. As an instructor in grant writing, I draw upon my past education, work, funding experience, and my continued learning to design and enrich each workshop. I am a classically trained physiologist, with five years of experience in basic research labs. This is where I initially learned the significance and challenges of grant writing. Five additional years focusing on grant writing, mediating collaborations, workshop instruction, and graduate coursework in professional writing broadened my funding expertise and developed a specific workshop style.
Transference and applicability: Grant writing is a time intensive task that is often done in addition to a full work-load. Realizing the time constraints felt by employees, I value effective and efficient transference of knowledge over all else. Therefore, my grant writing workshops focus on transferability of skills by combining a lecture, discussion, and hands-on work using the clients’ own grants. The combination of my expertise, overt instruction, and situated learning promotes effective acquisition and transference of skills by allowing clients to learn within a community of practice (New London Group; Lave and Wenger). The overt instruction covers topics such as locating grant opportunities, common and disciplinary techniques required for writing and development, and technological concerns for successful submission. This knowledge is then immediately put into practice using the client’s own work, allowing employees to actively learn, reinforce knowledge, improve current or future grants, and maximize time-management.
Collaboration: The development of most grants depends on successful collaboration and communication between members. In my experience, communication barriers can be the primary cause for a failed submission. Therefore, I highly value the skills required to effectively collaborate and therefore incorporate them into my workshops. Clients learn and practice problem-solving, different communication, personal and technological strategies to improve their own collaborations through discussion and the hands-on portion of the workshop.
Accessibility: I realize that grant writing is a long process and is learned through the act of doing. The workshop provides a strong foundational knowledge, however additional questions, concerns, or need for input will arise. Therefore, I believe in continued support for as long as necessary. Clients can access my support through email communication, in-house or on-line meetings, or follow-up focused workshops during normal business hours.
Assessment: The grant writing workshop is an evolving entity as it must keep abreast of the constant changes in funding environments, the economy, and academic and industry needs. Therefore, I value assessment as it allows me to continually improve my instructional design. I assess learning by observing the transformation of grant drafts through the writing process, successful submission, and funding rate. I assess efficacy and relevancy through client feedback, acquired by a post-workshop and subsequent post-grant submission questionnaire.
My teaching philosophy is based off multiple values including transferability, collaboration, accessibility, and improvement, all of which are in place to best serve my clients. I am a colleague, not a teacher and it is my goal to share as much of my experience and expertise with the clients as possible. Therefore, I strive to be approachable, informative, and efficient so that my clients can successfully develop, submit, and win grants.
References
Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Print.
The New London Group. “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.” Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. Ed. Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis. New York: Routledge, 2000. 9-37. Print.
Post for 11/16: Jigsaw
Jigsaw Summary
Citation:
Stine, Linda. "The Best of Both Worlds: Teaching Basic Writers in Class and Online." Computers in the Composition Classroom. Eds. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, and Elizabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2008. 389-403. Print.
Electronic Representation:
Amazon link to text: http://www.amazon.com/Computers-Composition-Classroom-Sourcebook-Professional/dp/0312458444
Summary:
Stine examines the interaction between basic writers and computers, discussing the positive and negative impacts that online instruction has on this student population. The author goes on to suggest a hybrid environment to maximize the beneficial aspects of both traditional and online classroom environments.
Stine identifies eight problems associated with basic writers and online instruction:
1. Social: accessibility
2. Homogeny: diverse students conform to middle class values perpetuated by computer
3. Technological: students must learn technology in addition to writing, thus detracting from writing instruction and students readily depend on authority of the computer (spell check)
4. Atmosphere: students receive less environmental cues, thereby reducing both negative and positive feedback on writing
5. Composing: increased flexibility offered by online writing can enhance and perpetuate poor composing habits
6. Online reading: this style fosters skimming and filtering, which are considered reading weaknesses as they can lead to poor comprehension
7. Students: online courses require self-direction, which can be difficult for new students
8. Skill acquisition: instructors must find time and resources to learn and stay abreast of technology and implementation in the classroom
Stine identifies ten benefits associated with basic writers and online instruction:
1. Reflection: asynchronous online features extend time for students to reflect and participate in discussion
2. Real: writing online is viewed as worthwhile and pertinent, thereby students are more interested and engaged
3. Life: adult learners often have limited schedules and online learning offers necessary flexibility
4. Time management and increased resources: online teaching offers easily accessible resources through links, reducing time spent searching
5. Skill-building: online environments allow document organization and tracking, participation in community discussion, and peer feedback, all valuable writing skills
6. Environment: a positive environment has positive effects on student writing, online spaces are inclusive and allow all students to participate
7. Commitment: online classes allow increased connection of like-minded people, thereby fostering enhanced energy and commitment
8. Community: online environments allow for extended periods of student discussion and interaction, thus enhancing the community and increasing feedback
9. Active learning: online classes require students to participate and engage their own learning
10. Persistence: online writing is persistent as it can be searched, viewed, changed, and remains accessible over time. This persistence supports critical reflection on one’s own and peer writing.
Stine concludes the chapter by describing the benefits of a hybrid classroom environment supported by her experiences at Lincoln University. Students in the Master of Human Service Program who require additional writing instruction participate in a Pre-master’s Program, focused on improving writing and critical thinking skills. The students alternate weekly meetings between in-class instruction and at-home distance. Maintaining both an in-class session and distance instruction has numerous benefits.
1. Student-faculty contact: internet accessibility increases opportunity for contact through email and chat while in-class sessions allow for follow up and in depth conversations
2. Collaboration: online access expands collaborative opportunity through email, discussion boards, and chats while in-class sessions strengthen personal interaction
3. Active learning: both online and in-class environments strengthen personal ties, prompting students to participate more readily with their peers and engage their learning
4. Feedback: online writing and testing allows for rapid teacher feedback while in-class sessions allow students to discuss and listen to questions, thereby reinforcing prior individual learning
5. Time on task: online tools can remind students of tasks and schedules while in-class sessions reinforce timelines through personal interaction
6. Practice: discussion, interaction, and writing in both online and classroom environments forces the students to learn and use numerous skills that will be valuable later
7. Diverse learning: the combination of online and in-class learning appeals to numerous learning styles, thus including more students
Discussion Questions:
Can you think of any other pros or cons associated with basic writers and online instruction?
How else can a hybrid environment be conducted or adapted to maximize student benefit?
Citation:
Stine, Linda. "The Best of Both Worlds: Teaching Basic Writers in Class and Online." Computers in the Composition Classroom. Eds. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, and Elizabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2008. 389-403. Print.
Electronic Representation:
Amazon link to text: http://www.amazon.com/Computers-Composition-Classroom-Sourcebook-Professional/dp/0312458444
Summary:
Stine examines the interaction between basic writers and computers, discussing the positive and negative impacts that online instruction has on this student population. The author goes on to suggest a hybrid environment to maximize the beneficial aspects of both traditional and online classroom environments.
Stine identifies eight problems associated with basic writers and online instruction:
1. Social: accessibility
2. Homogeny: diverse students conform to middle class values perpetuated by computer
3. Technological: students must learn technology in addition to writing, thus detracting from writing instruction and students readily depend on authority of the computer (spell check)
4. Atmosphere: students receive less environmental cues, thereby reducing both negative and positive feedback on writing
5. Composing: increased flexibility offered by online writing can enhance and perpetuate poor composing habits
6. Online reading: this style fosters skimming and filtering, which are considered reading weaknesses as they can lead to poor comprehension
7. Students: online courses require self-direction, which can be difficult for new students
8. Skill acquisition: instructors must find time and resources to learn and stay abreast of technology and implementation in the classroom
Stine identifies ten benefits associated with basic writers and online instruction:
1. Reflection: asynchronous online features extend time for students to reflect and participate in discussion
2. Real: writing online is viewed as worthwhile and pertinent, thereby students are more interested and engaged
3. Life: adult learners often have limited schedules and online learning offers necessary flexibility
4. Time management and increased resources: online teaching offers easily accessible resources through links, reducing time spent searching
5. Skill-building: online environments allow document organization and tracking, participation in community discussion, and peer feedback, all valuable writing skills
6. Environment: a positive environment has positive effects on student writing, online spaces are inclusive and allow all students to participate
7. Commitment: online classes allow increased connection of like-minded people, thereby fostering enhanced energy and commitment
8. Community: online environments allow for extended periods of student discussion and interaction, thus enhancing the community and increasing feedback
9. Active learning: online classes require students to participate and engage their own learning
10. Persistence: online writing is persistent as it can be searched, viewed, changed, and remains accessible over time. This persistence supports critical reflection on one’s own and peer writing.
Stine concludes the chapter by describing the benefits of a hybrid classroom environment supported by her experiences at Lincoln University. Students in the Master of Human Service Program who require additional writing instruction participate in a Pre-master’s Program, focused on improving writing and critical thinking skills. The students alternate weekly meetings between in-class instruction and at-home distance. Maintaining both an in-class session and distance instruction has numerous benefits.
1. Student-faculty contact: internet accessibility increases opportunity for contact through email and chat while in-class sessions allow for follow up and in depth conversations
2. Collaboration: online access expands collaborative opportunity through email, discussion boards, and chats while in-class sessions strengthen personal interaction
3. Active learning: both online and in-class environments strengthen personal ties, prompting students to participate more readily with their peers and engage their learning
4. Feedback: online writing and testing allows for rapid teacher feedback while in-class sessions allow students to discuss and listen to questions, thereby reinforcing prior individual learning
5. Time on task: online tools can remind students of tasks and schedules while in-class sessions reinforce timelines through personal interaction
6. Practice: discussion, interaction, and writing in both online and classroom environments forces the students to learn and use numerous skills that will be valuable later
7. Diverse learning: the combination of online and in-class learning appeals to numerous learning styles, thus including more students
Discussion Questions:
Can you think of any other pros or cons associated with basic writers and online instruction?
How else can a hybrid environment be conducted or adapted to maximize student benefit?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)