A group of my colleagues and I submitted a panel proposal to the Minnesota Colleges and Universities English and Writing (MnCUEW) conference at the end of February. We were informed that all the panel positions were filled, but just a few days ago we received e-mails informing us of the time our panel was to present. Yikes! While I regret that I have little time to prepare—the conference is in one week—I am thankful that I already know my topic quite well due to this class and this blog. After all, the panel is called “The Multimodal Classroom: Old Lesson Plans in New Ways.”
I will be presenting about my incorporation of texting and Twitter in my composition classroom. There being five of us in the panel, I will only have about ten minutes; so the piece will be succinct and svelte. I haven’t finessed all the details yet, but most of them will come from my blogging and my classroom experiences with the lessons. Basically, I will briefly explain my justifications, my goals, the lesson itself, and then share some of the results.
Having never presented at a conference, I have to say I am quite anxious. While I am relatively at ease speaking in front of a crowd, I do get antsy when it comes to big "to-do’s.” From my understanding, conference presentations can sometimes have only a handful—or less—audience members; but despite any unease on my part, I hope we get a good turnout: I’d love to make a grand entrance into the spotlight of discourse in my discipline.
On an unrelated note, today I found the perfect segue for my thesis paper. One of my favorite machinimator’s blogs held the key to linking machinima as a medium to machinima as a rhetorical tool. The journal length paper I wrote for Dr. Moberly’s rhetoric class last fall was heading towards that direction, but I hadn’t found a great way to show the art medium as rhetorical vehicle until this morning. Olibith—the machinimator whose blog I read, coincidentally also referenced in my paper—discussed in his blog how WoW game developers incorporated a character from one of his films into their game. Exciting!
This is exactly the evidence I was looking for to start analyzing machinima as a rhetorical interaction between players of the game and the game makers. It is proof, small as it may be, supporting the position that consumers are also producers (Baudrillard’s System of Objects).
Showing posts with label Text Messaging. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Text Messaging. Show all posts
Friday, March 27, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Text Translation: Pidgin Practices
I used my text-translation activity in class last week and decided I should blog about it, given I did the same for my Twitter exercise. For my rhetorical analysis essay, my students read one of three pre-selected essays (Richard Dawkins’ and Jerry Coyne’s essay “One Side Can Be Wrong,” Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” or Angelina Grimké’s “A Speech in Pennsylvania Hall”). I divided my class into groups based on which of the three essays they chose to read, further subdividing them into groups of two and three.
In preparation for the activity, I selected a number of passages from each essay that posed interesting problems for translation: the use of quotes, multi-syllabic jargon, enormous sentences, complex punctuation, etc. Then, I assigned groups a passage from the essay they read for their rhetorical analysis essay. The task was to, as a group, translate the passage from prose into a text message. I even allowed them to take out their cell phones for assistance (to avoid genre/composition tool disconnect issues).
After the groups translated the prose into text at the top of a sheet of paper, I collected the sheets and gave them to a group that was unfamiliar with the essay. The groups then were tasked with translating the text message back into prose without the contextual knowledge of the essay. This second translation was done on the same sheet of paper just below the first.
I was pleased with the amount of variation in texting practices. The results were extremely diverse. Some students ignored all punctuation, others included all punctuation but clipped consonants or vowels from words, and others still translated nearly verbatim the original. Then, when the groups were done, I read the original passage aloud and projected the two translations on the Elmo for the class to discuss.
Translation procedure was impacted by the type of cell phones people used: phones with more accessible keyboards (where punctuation isn’t seven transition screens away) yielded closer translations to the original. And while texting practices varied, nearly every student could understand others’ text message translations. It was like a pidgin English was forming through the medium of text messages.
Below I’ve copied one example from the exercise:
From “One Side Can Be Wrong”:
“It sounds so reasonable, doesn’t it? Such a modest proposal. Why not teach ‘both sides’ and let the children decide for themselves? As President Bush said, ‘You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.’ At first hearing, everything about the phrase ‘both sides’ warms the hearts of educators like ourselves” (Dawkins and Coyne 70).
Prose-to-Text Translation:
“its resonbl rght? Sch modst prpsl. Y nt teach Both n lt da kids dcide 4 demself? Bush say – ppl shuld b xposed 2 dif ? – 1st time hearin warms <3 o teachas lik me.”
Text-to-Prose Translation:
“It’s reasonable, right? Such modest proposal. Why not teach both and let the children decide for themselves? President Bush says people should be exposed to different questions – first time hearing warms hearts of teachers like me.”
Works Cited:
Dawkins, Richard and Jerry Coyne. “One Side Can Be Wrong.” Seagull Reader: Essays 2nd Edition, Ed. Joseph Kelly, W.W. Norton: New York.
In preparation for the activity, I selected a number of passages from each essay that posed interesting problems for translation: the use of quotes, multi-syllabic jargon, enormous sentences, complex punctuation, etc. Then, I assigned groups a passage from the essay they read for their rhetorical analysis essay. The task was to, as a group, translate the passage from prose into a text message. I even allowed them to take out their cell phones for assistance (to avoid genre/composition tool disconnect issues).
After the groups translated the prose into text at the top of a sheet of paper, I collected the sheets and gave them to a group that was unfamiliar with the essay. The groups then were tasked with translating the text message back into prose without the contextual knowledge of the essay. This second translation was done on the same sheet of paper just below the first.
I was pleased with the amount of variation in texting practices. The results were extremely diverse. Some students ignored all punctuation, others included all punctuation but clipped consonants or vowels from words, and others still translated nearly verbatim the original. Then, when the groups were done, I read the original passage aloud and projected the two translations on the Elmo for the class to discuss.
Translation procedure was impacted by the type of cell phones people used: phones with more accessible keyboards (where punctuation isn’t seven transition screens away) yielded closer translations to the original. And while texting practices varied, nearly every student could understand others’ text message translations. It was like a pidgin English was forming through the medium of text messages.
Below I’ve copied one example from the exercise:
From “One Side Can Be Wrong”:
“It sounds so reasonable, doesn’t it? Such a modest proposal. Why not teach ‘both sides’ and let the children decide for themselves? As President Bush said, ‘You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.’ At first hearing, everything about the phrase ‘both sides’ warms the hearts of educators like ourselves” (Dawkins and Coyne 70).
Prose-to-Text Translation:
“its resonbl rght? Sch modst prpsl. Y nt teach Both n lt da kids dcide 4 demself? Bush say – ppl shuld b xposed 2 dif ? – 1st time hearin warms <3 o teachas lik me.”
Text-to-Prose Translation:
“It’s reasonable, right? Such modest proposal. Why not teach both and let the children decide for themselves? President Bush says people should be exposed to different questions – first time hearing warms hearts of teachers like me.”
Works Cited:
Dawkins, Richard and Jerry Coyne. “One Side Can Be Wrong.” Seagull Reader: Essays 2nd Edition, Ed. Joseph Kelly, W.W. Norton: New York.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Texts and Tweets
I’ve never used Twitter. I dislike texting. Yet, the thought of using them in a classroom thrills me. Allow me to clarify. I know about Twitter (140 characters or less, sent as an update to a blog or profile, etc.) and I do actually text message – I’d just prefer to call. I hate having entire conversations over text. However, I see both of these technologies as wonderful opportunities to teach composition. Not only are students familiar with and using both (more so texts than tweets), but they can provide many strong lesson plans that focus on important aspects of the writing process.
Text messages get a bad rap. The media seems to have it out for them: every couple months I see an article or hear a news byte about how text messaging is destroying the youth’s grammar and mechanics. Anchors quote grumpy old retiring English profs about their opinion and get, inevitably, the same answer every time: kids don’t know squat. Well, guess what: curmudgeons have been saying that since time began – it is old folks’ right to complain, but that doesn’t mean they’re right, even if they are English teachers.
I read an interesting article in a recent issue of American Speech by Sali Tagliamonte and Derek Denis (two sociolinguists from U of Toronto) that contradicts the popular notion that text messaging, instant messaging, and all other SMS (synchronous messaging services) ruin the ability to write. You can find information on the article here:
http://americanspeech.dukejournals.org/cgi/content/short/83/1/3
The gist of it is that texting actually helps strengthen stylistic fluency and that there is nothing to fear. Fancy that. Hence, I intend to exercise the power of texting in class. While the lesson plan is still fluid, I will break my students into small groups and give each one a different passage from an essay in their reader, something short but potent. The groups will translate their passage into a text message and send it over to another group. After each group has received another group’s text-encrypted passage, they will have to translate the passage back into prose. I’ve no idea what to expect; my instincts tell me they will do a better job than the media might give them credit for.
Twitter, while untested (by me – I know a lot of TechRhet listserv folks use it pedagogically), has great potential to stress the need for conciseness. Some great lesson plans can be found in a limitation of 140 characters: the elimination of wordiness, the affordances in writing as well as the constraints. Students would try to write something (jury is out on what I’d have them write specifically) using Twitter restrictions. Now, I doubt I’d have them actually do either exercise on cell phones; it would be too distracting and logistically complicated (I wouldn’t force them to give other students their numbers). But by using the templates of each, it could provide interesting results. Below is a bit by the folks at Penny Arcade (my favorite web comic) on Twitter. Warning: Some NSFW language (in writing).
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/4/23/
Text messages get a bad rap. The media seems to have it out for them: every couple months I see an article or hear a news byte about how text messaging is destroying the youth’s grammar and mechanics. Anchors quote grumpy old retiring English profs about their opinion and get, inevitably, the same answer every time: kids don’t know squat. Well, guess what: curmudgeons have been saying that since time began – it is old folks’ right to complain, but that doesn’t mean they’re right, even if they are English teachers.
I read an interesting article in a recent issue of American Speech by Sali Tagliamonte and Derek Denis (two sociolinguists from U of Toronto) that contradicts the popular notion that text messaging, instant messaging, and all other SMS (synchronous messaging services) ruin the ability to write. You can find information on the article here:
http://americanspeech.dukejournals.org/cgi/content/short/83/1/3
The gist of it is that texting actually helps strengthen stylistic fluency and that there is nothing to fear. Fancy that. Hence, I intend to exercise the power of texting in class. While the lesson plan is still fluid, I will break my students into small groups and give each one a different passage from an essay in their reader, something short but potent. The groups will translate their passage into a text message and send it over to another group. After each group has received another group’s text-encrypted passage, they will have to translate the passage back into prose. I’ve no idea what to expect; my instincts tell me they will do a better job than the media might give them credit for.
Twitter, while untested (by me – I know a lot of TechRhet listserv folks use it pedagogically), has great potential to stress the need for conciseness. Some great lesson plans can be found in a limitation of 140 characters: the elimination of wordiness, the affordances in writing as well as the constraints. Students would try to write something (jury is out on what I’d have them write specifically) using Twitter restrictions. Now, I doubt I’d have them actually do either exercise on cell phones; it would be too distracting and logistically complicated (I wouldn’t force them to give other students their numbers). But by using the templates of each, it could provide interesting results. Below is a bit by the folks at Penny Arcade (my favorite web comic) on Twitter. Warning: Some NSFW language (in writing).
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/4/23/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
