Technology in the classroom

The article by Mauriello and Pagnucci was an interesting article. I am figuring that this article is dated because it is dealing with, what I assume, were early difficulties with using the internet in the classroom. I do agree with some of the points though especially at the end when it thought-provokingly questions the idea of technology and whether it is really all that important. How many teachers are using technology because they “have to” not because they necessarily think it strengthens their classrooms. I am not downing technology; I just thought that was an interesting question.


I also thought the idea of pseudonyms was a good idea, until I was proven dreadfully wrong. I then remembered that we live in the internet age of blogs and such and people can be blocked and so the need for this type of privacy is not as important as it may have been in the beginning. I thought that they were working through the idea of privacy well, but I did not agree with the fact that their students could receive criticism from anyone on the web. That did not make any sense to me, because that seems like a dangerous thing to do: ethically and pedagogically. A student’s esteem could be slashed and personal information could be used against them. But again, I think that blogging solves some of that dilemma for us as well, as long as a teacher knows what blogs are decent and whatnot.

Selfe also writes about technology in the classroom and “technology should not drive pedagogy.” I was happy to read that small section because it alleviates some fear of have the internet and using it in my classes ( I know, I am the teacher who thinks they should be an “expert” of something or else they will make an ass of themselves). But! Selfe also explained that we can learn from our advanced students and have them help us, so I may be able to get over my fear. In general, I thought that Selfe’s chapter was helpful. I liked the way it was set up and it made some really good points about technology and how to use it. I particularly liked the idea about sequencing when using technology and the internet because that way the students can learn it and possibly see why they are completing an assignment (always a perk). I hated the “technology” classes I had that would have me do some random thing on the internet/Blackboard or whatever and then I never did it again in my life. It remains an assignment that I miraculously completed through a lot of pain and sweat.

Nelson Article

Nelson Article

I found myself nodding my head up and down several times when reading the Nelson article. (I wasn't falling asleep, but rather agreeing with the findings. haha...) Students’ views of assignments very often differ from the views of the teacher. I believe this is directly related to the way the American school system is set up. In the end, classes boil down to a letter grade. Therefore, most of the time students write papers to receive a grade, not to grow as learners. I realize that sounds a bit harsh... haha. Teachers view assignments as a way for students to grow; Students view assignments as a way to get a grade. In my own academic past, I have often approached assignments in this way. I thought to myself, "What does the teacher REALLY want." It can almost seem like a game sometimes. You observe your teacher's likes and dislikes and attempt to adapt your writing style to that. I sometimes think that a major part of being "good" at school is knowing how to read your teacher and your classes. This idea is supported in parts of the Nelson article. John, the student from the second class, formulated his paper NOT by how it was outlined in the assignment, but in terms of how his last papers had been graded. The TA stressed recitation, so John responded by giving him/her recitation.

I have mixed feelings about the way in which the "guidelines" given out in the Sociology class affected the students. I think it is important to be clear when outling an assignment, so that students are not wallowing in confusion. Yet, I do not want to be so clear, that they reduce the paper to a list of bullet points that they can check off. That is not writing, it is list making! I guess the problem could be remedied by not giving students a "strict" list of guidelines, and by stressing that things will not be the only aspects of the paper graded. It is a tough line to walk. You don't want to constrict creativity, but you also don't want students to feel so insecure that they cannot produce effectively.

I was not at all surprised when the students did not respond favorably to the comments left on their papers. Revision was not stressed in the classes, so why should students care about continuing on with the texts? Once you give a student a letter grade, they feel as if their job is done. They have already received what they set out to get in the first place. I now know that I will never grade a "draft." If you do, students view it as a final product, not as a work in progress.

blog idea

I just thought of something that might make this blog a little more organized. How about we limit posts about a specific article to just one post (obviously made by the first person to hit the blog after reading), with the rest of class' writing about the article made as comments this post? This way, each article will have a single post containing our entire discussion about said article.

Blogfully yours,
- Bob

On Carl Gerriets

After reading Carl Gerriet's "Building Relationships through Written Dialogue," I thought to myself, that really made sense. In getting ready to teach next semester, the thing that I've been thinking about most is how to reach a diverse group of students, and especially how to reach students outside of our discipline who may not be as engaged as we would like all of our students to be. Gerriets said, "I need to establish a conversation with each student and build on it throughout our time together," which of course is something I have given much thought to before, but the fact that he does this primarily through responses to student cover letters on papers is brilliant. Not only is he not handing out a grade until the end of the semester with the final portfolio, but he is providing detailed comments for each paper. What I found to be most interesting about this is that Gerriets isn't just commenting on the students' work--he is responding to the needs the students express in their cover letter, and he saves all of this to his computer so that he can look at it the next time he responds to them, and see their progress throughout the semester. All of this shows that he is truly dedicated to the progress of each individual student, not simply ensuring that they know how to write an A paper, but that they understand more about the writing process itself. This idea has been coming up in nearly all of our readings and discussions, and, though I think we can all agree that it's important, what we really need to be asking ourselves, like Gerriets, is how can I do this in my teaching? How can we improve our ways of building relationships with students so that what we are teaching them becomes more valuable to them? I think this has a lot to do with some of the things we talked about from Mem Fox's "Notes from the Battlefield" article. She writes about helping her students to develop as a writer by writing what matters to them, and Gerriets is teaching by showing he really cares about their writing, and encourages his students to become invested in their writing progress through these cover letters and responses, and so I think the values of both Fox and Gerriets go hand-in-hand. With each article we read for this class, I have noticed that they are all generally going in the same pedagogical direction, but I think that we can really use these ideas in our own pedagogies, if we take what we like from each person we learn from. Personally, I really like Gerriet's way of responding to papers, and I think I would like to try something like that for my own classes. I also definitely want my students to "ache with caring" when they write their papers, and so there are aspects of Fox's pedagogy that I could see myself adapting. What I really think is important here is that we see that there is no one way to teach, and that we can learn from everybody, even (or especially) the students.