Our Focus: Inquiry

1
Our Focus Inquiry

• How can writing tools enable writing program
  administrators and teachers in a large university
  writing program to construct a shared,
  standardized curriculum?
• CrowdSourcing gt Will a collaboratively
  constructed curriculum be wiser than a curriculum
  that a WPA or faculty committee could construct?

• Tools
• SharePoint,
• Blackboard
• Camtasia
• Discussion forums
• Blogs
• Wikis

2
Context

• 9500 students enroll in about 450 sections of ENC
  1101 or ENC 1102.
• 50 graduate students, 30 adjuncts, and 8
  Instructors.
• The majority of our M.A. and Ph.D. GTAS seek
  degrees in literature or creative writing as
  opposed to Rhetoric and Composition.

3
Technological Dramas, CrowdSourcing, and the
Wisdom of Teachers

• Joe Moxley
• University of South Florida
• http//joemoxley.org

4
Embracing Contraries gt Two Contrary Goals

• Standardize the curriculum (within reason)
• Engage CrowdSourcing gt the Wisdom of Teachers
• Create an online environment that provides agency
  to teachers, agency that they have never had
  before because the collaborative technologies
  were previously unavailable.

5
On the Need for Standardization

• "Sure," I would reply, sitting down at a
  conference table with the teaching faculty.
  "Tell me what is being taught in your courses."
  This would be met with an embarrassed silence.
  Most of the time nobody really knew what was
  taught in the various sections of the various
  writing courses listed in the college catalogue
  -- that is, in any course besides the one a
  particular teacher was teaching, with the door to
  the classroom shut ..Can we imagine a
  mathematics department in which Math 101 has
  widely different goals depending on which teacher
  happens to be teaching it, with some working on
  beginning arithmetic while others are starting
  calculus?" (White, Edward p.4).

White, E. (2005). Why Outcomes? The Origins of
the Outcomes Statement. In The Outcomes Book
Debate and Consensus after the WPA Statement.
Logan Utah State UP.
6
On The Wisdom of Crowds, Decentralized Systems

• if you set a crowd of self-interested,
  independent people to work in a decentralized way
  on the same problem, instead of trying to direct
  their efforts from the top down, their collective
  solution is likely to be better than any other
  solution you could come up (70)
• Surowiecki, J. (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds. New
  York Anchor Books.

7
Smart vs Dumb Crowds
a decentralized system can only produce
genuinely intelligent results if there is a means
of aggregating information of everyone in the
system (74)
Aggregationwhich could be seen as a curious form
of centralizationis therefore paradoxically
important to the success of decentralization (75)
8
Managing Contraries, Generating Synergy
Decentralized Systems Centrifugal Motion
Centralized systemsCentripetal Motion
9
Our Effort _at_ Standardization

• Same textbooks
• 3 major projects revised 3xs (choose from
  alternatives or submit new alternative)
• Written feedback by teachers x 3
• Blackboard for grading throughout semester
• 3 Blogs or Wikis or Journals x250 words /weekx
  13 12000 words
• Use of our Evaluation Form once for each Project
• 2 Conferences/semester
• ePortfolio/wikifolio

10
Aggregating Knowledge Online

• Aggregate Knowledge _at_ Our Websites
• F2F Meetings
• Camtasia Videos
• Podcasts More
• Websites

• Honor the creative power of the individual
  teacher
• Create systems for contributing
• Create diverse opportunities for different ways
  to contribute and be part of the community

11
Aggregating Knowledge

• http//collegewriting.us to serve as the primary
  website for the program.
• http//writingwiki.org to provide an open access,
  password free space for student writing.
• http//teachingwiki.org to provide an open
  access, password free space for teachers to
  brainstorm about teaching practices and program
  policies.
• http//writingblogs.org to enable students to
  blog as required by our curriculum.

12
WritingBlogs.Org
13
Outcomes

• Some success with collaboration
• Different Reactions to Technologies
• Different Roles for Teachers

14
Successes and Opportunities

• Approximately 40 faculty have created websites
  that connect with our curriculum or adapt our
  curriculum.
• About 20 have developed major writing projects or
  minor assignments and had these curriculum
  materials reviewed and approved by our Policy
  Committee.

15
TeachingWiki.Org

• Many of our teachers have used the wiki to share
  ideas on useful blog topics, http//teachingwiki.o
  rg/default.aspx/TeachingWiki/Blogging20Topics.htm
  l.
• Approximately 15 teachers collaborate on an essay
  on teaching the writing process at
  http//teachingwiki.org/default.aspx/TeachingWiki/
  TeachingWritingProcess.html
• 20 teachers share abstracts on essays related to
  teaching at http//teachingwiki.org/default.aspx/T
  eachingWiki/TeachingWritingAnnotatedBibliography.h
  tml
• About 25 teachers share lessons plans for 1101 at
  http//teachingwiki.org/default.aspx/TeachingWiki/
  1101.html and 1102 at http//teachingwiki.org/defa
  ult.aspx/TeachingWiki/1102.html

16
WritingWiki.Org

• Darcy Webber has had repeated sections of her
  composition courses develop a website on public
  writing that has come to inform the work of all
  of our teachers http//writingwiki.org/default.
  aspx/WritingWiki/PublicWritingOnline.html
• Quentin Vierrege has his students work weekly on
  collaborative wiki-novels http//writingwiki.org
  /default.aspx/WritingWiki/WikiNovelMWF.html
• Taylor Mitchell had her students research
  university communities through t-shirts. Her
  students posted pictures of t-shirts around
  campus and explained how they show community
  http//www.writingwiki.org/default.aspx/WritingWik
  i/ResearchingUniversityCommunityTShirts.html
• http//writingwiki.org/default.aspx/WritingWiki/Cl
  ass20Wiki20Workspaces.html.

17
WritingWiki.Org

• John Janzen and Brian McAllister's students
  created an online lexical dictionary to build
  vocabulary http//www.writingwiki.org/default.as
  px/WritingWiki/LexicalDictionary.html
• Ryan Meehan's students create wiki workspaces to
  do their class work, including peer review.
  http//writingwiki.org/default.aspx/WritingWiki/Cl
  ass20Wiki20Workspaces.html
• A number of us have used wikifolios as an
  alternative to eportfolios via Blackboard. Here
  is an example of one students wikifolio
  http//writingwiki.org/default.aspx/1102/MariaFran
  coWaite.html. And here is an example of
  student-generated links to wikifolios

18
Successes and Opportunities

• Resistance on many fronts has given way to
  advocacy. What was once mysterious and troubling
  has now become transparent, prosaic, and useful.
  
• Power has been distributed more equitably.
• A few faculty members have been genuinely
  inspired by our use of technology.

19
Successes and Opportunities

• By being early adopters, we were able to move
  most of our courses into hybrid classrooms, which
  enables our teachers to use the Internet and
  document cameras to feature studied work.
• Success Breeds Success

20
Assumed Roles of Participating Faculty in the
Online FYC Community

• In 1995, Everett Rogers presented five adopter
  categories that have since gained widespread
  usage
• Innovators
• early adopters
• early majority
• late majority
• laggards.

21
Administrators

• The administrator category consists of the staff
  of the writing program, which includes the
  writing program director, the associate director,
  and the program assistants. These users
  routinely create new document libraries, web
  parts, and web pages. They also work with
  teachers who do not wish to learn the technology
  to upload the content they provide.

22
Downloaders

• Rather than adapt the content of the websites to
  suit their unique interests, these users
• point their students to the program websites and
  tell their students to follow the directions
• do not like significant changes to the websites
• prefer that the websites be written for students
  as opposed to teachers

23
Authors

• Authors play a leadership role in the writing
  program by
• uploading new projects, by
• uploading new writing assignments, and
• engaging their students in online authoring
  projects.
• Authors may also include teachers who develop new
  projects yet rely on administrators to upload
  them.

24
Critics

• These users critique the curriculum/polices via
  online discussions, blogs, committee work, and
  written responses that they share with peers and
  program administrators.
• These users know how to use the technologies but
  they may not use the technology to upload
  content
• While they may refuse to provide projects or
  alternative or revised policies, they do provide
  meaningful critiques that shape the program and
  redirects it.

25
Adapters

• These users download selected content from the
  website. They then revise the assignments to fit
  their needs and interests. Then they submit
  their revisions to their students or they upload
  the texts to their own websites. They may not
  evolve into authors
• The percentage of users who are Adapters appears
  to grow each year as our faculty become more
  comfortable with online writing.

26
Tourists

• These users visit the website on occasion, and
  they direct their students to follow the
  instructions on limited parts of the website. In
  other words, they pick and choose, using some
  assignments and ignoring others. As tourists
  these users occasionally violate local
  conventions.

27
Advocates

• These kind souls share their use of the websites
  with other teachers in the program. They help
  focus the Tourists and transform the Lost and
  Confused (see below) into Adopters, Critics, or
  Authors. These folks are vocal on the listserv
  they are eager to help, to mentor. Along with the
  Authors and Critics, these
• are the opinion leaders in
• our community.

28
Pretenders

• On the first day of class and during the first
  few weeks, these users may distribute documents
  to their students and writing program
  administrators that suggest they plan to follow
  standardized curriculum however, somewhere along
  the road from week 1 to week 15 these users go
  astray. They may substitute a sound,
  challenging, thought provoking curriculum or they
  may waste everyone's time.

29
Explorers

• Perhaps most interesting, we have a few teachers
  who have researched alternative and in some way
  superior technologies to those that we host on
  our servers. Ryan Meehan and John Nieves, for
  example, have left our servers to set up shop at
  http//usfcomposition.wikispaces.com/. At
  WikiSpaces and other public writing spaces,
  particularly Newsvine, they have students suggest
  research ideas or organize peer reviews. Like
  the Critics, these users help us see what
  additional tools and policies we should use.

30
Exciting New Possibilities
31
Lost and Confused

• While rare, a small number of our teachers lack
  very basic technology skills. For example, these
  teachers do not know what to do when they are
  asked to open Internet Explorer and click on
  Project Three. While these users may be
  supportive of the online curriculum, they may be
  unable to navigate the Web or use the resources
  in the hybrid classroom. They know there is an
  Internet but they don't know where it is or how
  to use it.

32
Terrorists

• As you can imagine, this adopter category refers
  to hackers who attack the website in order to
  disable it or destroy it. In addition, as
  presently constructed, all of the users in a
  composition community have the ability to delete
  the work of others. On occasion, either by error
  or by choice, pages have been deleted, Web
  resources and Web parts have been deleted, and
  content has been rearranged
• in ways that are confusing.

33
Disconnected

• The Disconnected may not use the website because
  they
• may disagree with the curriculum or program
  policies
• may simply not be paying attention.
• may lack technology skills
• may lack interest in teaching.
• While in the early stages of our effort we had a
  number of disconnected users, over time most of
  these teachers have left the program to teach
  elsewhere. A few remain, yet they are helped by
  the Advocates and Administrators so they can
  participate in our community from an offline
  perspective.

34
Roles of Teachers

• The notion that technology can enable teachers to
  work collaboratively to develop a standardized
  curriculum that is wiser than the curriculum an
  individual writing program administrator could
  develop -- represents a radically different role
  for writing teachers and WPAs.

35
Agency in English Departments???????????

• However, the dominant discourses do not come
  from English departments, not by any stretch of
  the most fertile imagination. They come from
  commercial software vendors, centers for academic
  computing, science and technology disciplines,
  and institutionalized computer literacy
  initiatives that concentrate on the workings of
  software programs and hardware devices. By and
  large, the dominant discourses can be
  characterized as well intentioned but not
  particularly critical, especially when it comes
  to the facts and implications of design cultures
  (Selber 178).

36
Exciting New Possibilities

• Involve students as authors
• Research agency in relation to structure
  understand tool use. . .
• Build Tools gt Next Step SPS 2007

37
Resources

• James Surowieki, Independent Individuals and Wise
  Crowds, http//www.itconversations.com/shows/detai
  l468.html
• http//collegewriting.us
• http//writingwiki.org
• http//teachingwiki.org
• http//writingblogs.org