“The medium is the message. This is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium - that is, of any extension of ourselves - result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology.” (p. 19) |
...
Pantelides suggests that as the nature of written communication continues to change in response to developing digital modes, practitioners working in multiliteracy centers of the future will increasingly need to understand how students develop expectations for online composing. She describes the results of her qualitative study exploring how students and those who teach them navigate and identify writing standards for low-stakes, digital composition. She defines low-stakes composition as written work completed and displayed in online forums and assessed only on completion. This relatively recent genre both challenges entrenched opinions of what effective writing looks like, and demands that we acknowledge the effect of technology of student voice. For, as Jim Porter contends:
“The technological past matters. It shapes the writer and writes the body in significant ways – etching itself on the writer’s consciousness and body, influencing how the writer learns to compose and how the writer communicates in social milieu. Our ideologies about writing, about composing, about rhetorical situation are formed in these various technological pasts, etched by various technologies.” (389)
Pantelides based her results on student survey data as well as data from writing center case study.
Student apprehension concerning digital composition and in-class instruction have influenced the emergence of writing centers as places for students to work through their difficulties and concerns regarding new media. Pantelides’ describes how digital composition in writing classrooms has influenced the approaches with which writing centers increasingly tackle matters of audience, contemplate novel approaches to creativity, and struggle with new emphases on grammatical and mechanical correctness. Her article presents recommended pedagogy for digital composition and suggests questions to practitioners in digitally defined writing centers (multiliteracy centers) about possible best practices as the genre continues to develop.
According to her survey data, students, and practitioners gradually navigate expectations for informal composition online with equal parts uncertainty and enthusiasm. Though her study sample is perhaps too small to suggest generalized expectations, it does identify some troublesome topics for students and practitioners. For example, instructors expected students to contribute online, but because instructors often regarded these obligations merely as introductory steps in larger writing assignments or as mostly low-stakes composition, they frequently failed to offer specific instructions on how to fulfill such assignments. Further, despite Pantelides’ observation that students often did not view digital composition as high-stakes; they nonetheless experienced pressure to achieve online because of their audience, even though their audience was within the forum only. They experienced pressure to be accurate, to be appealing, and to do it “right, “even though, many students were unsure what that meant. Further, although students found forum conversations beneficial, they were repeatedly confused about how to handle online writing in the forums. In addition, because of the increasingly diverse quality of higher education students, both demographically and in terms of computer literacy, Pantelides suggests practitioners will need to be unambiguous about standards. She is quick to point out, however, that this does not suggest practitioners should further emphasize assessment, and offers strong evidence against such practice in (Williams, 2009).
Pantelides argues, instead, that practitioners should articulate clear expectations and be aware of the pressure that commonly comes with low-stakes digital composition. She suggests that, no matter the assessed value of the assignment, practitioners must reflect on several important questions before they assign digital writing assignments. Such questions should elicit specific answers about what successful compositions look like, including aspects of grammar, syntax, and tone. She further cautions that despite data suggesting students find writing centers useful, many also did not see questions about digital writing assignments as suitable to writing center consultation. She speculated that such misperceptions were rooted in the low-stakes nature of such assignments, and writing center practitioners might combat such opinions by providing feedback on less-traditional standards.
In countless settings, digital composition is spawning novel and stimulating forms, and Pantelides suggests that practitioners should monitor student moves for each rhetorical position and support experimentation – that practitioners and students must act jointly to elaborate clear expectations, even in low-stakes situations. Practitioners need to contemplate what is valuable in online composition and to make those values explicit to students.
Further, as mulitliteracy center practitioners doing work that will continue to situate more and more in the digital, we must begin considering how to meet our students where they are. If they are composing in digital spaces, then we must consider how to meet them in that situation effectively, as we continue the work of writing centers into a future in which such centers might also find themselves existing only in digital space.
In his compelling piece, “Situation Definition and the Online Synchronous Writing Conference” (2012), Sam Van Horne begins this theoretical discussion by taking a look at how we might use Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) to promote student learning in emergent digital spaces.
Student apprehension concerning digital composition and in-class instruction have influenced the emergence of writing centers as places for students to work through their difficulties and concerns regarding new media. Pantelides’ describes how digital composition in writing classrooms has influenced the approaches with which writing centers increasingly tackle matters of audience, contemplate novel approaches to creativity, and struggle with new emphases on grammatical and mechanical correctness. Her article presents recommended pedagogy for digital composition and suggests questions to practitioners in digitally defined writing centers (multiliteracy centers) about possible best practices as the genre continues to develop.
According to her survey data, students, and practitioners gradually navigate expectations for informal composition online with equal parts uncertainty and enthusiasm. Though her study sample is perhaps too small to suggest generalized expectations, it does identify some troublesome topics for students and practitioners. For example, instructors expected students to contribute online, but because instructors often regarded these obligations merely as introductory steps in larger writing assignments or as mostly low-stakes composition, they frequently failed to offer specific instructions on how to fulfill such assignments. Further, despite Pantelides’ observation that students often did not view digital composition as high-stakes; they nonetheless experienced pressure to achieve online because of their audience, even though their audience was within the forum only. They experienced pressure to be accurate, to be appealing, and to do it “right, “even though, many students were unsure what that meant. Further, although students found forum conversations beneficial, they were repeatedly confused about how to handle online writing in the forums. In addition, because of the increasingly diverse quality of higher education students, both demographically and in terms of computer literacy, Pantelides suggests practitioners will need to be unambiguous about standards. She is quick to point out, however, that this does not suggest practitioners should further emphasize assessment, and offers strong evidence against such practice in (Williams, 2009).
Pantelides argues, instead, that practitioners should articulate clear expectations and be aware of the pressure that commonly comes with low-stakes digital composition. She suggests that, no matter the assessed value of the assignment, practitioners must reflect on several important questions before they assign digital writing assignments. Such questions should elicit specific answers about what successful compositions look like, including aspects of grammar, syntax, and tone. She further cautions that despite data suggesting students find writing centers useful, many also did not see questions about digital writing assignments as suitable to writing center consultation. She speculated that such misperceptions were rooted in the low-stakes nature of such assignments, and writing center practitioners might combat such opinions by providing feedback on less-traditional standards.
In countless settings, digital composition is spawning novel and stimulating forms, and Pantelides suggests that practitioners should monitor student moves for each rhetorical position and support experimentation – that practitioners and students must act jointly to elaborate clear expectations, even in low-stakes situations. Practitioners need to contemplate what is valuable in online composition and to make those values explicit to students.
Further, as mulitliteracy center practitioners doing work that will continue to situate more and more in the digital, we must begin considering how to meet our students where they are. If they are composing in digital spaces, then we must consider how to meet them in that situation effectively, as we continue the work of writing centers into a future in which such centers might also find themselves existing only in digital space.
In his compelling piece, “Situation Definition and the Online Synchronous Writing Conference” (2012), Sam Van Horne begins this theoretical discussion by taking a look at how we might use Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) to promote student learning in emergent digital spaces.