cyborgsdodance

As I look back at my various blog postings for CI 5410, I would have to say that they all forced me to looked at issues of digital writing that I might not otherwise have considered. I think specifically of my entry on voice thread, and box logic. Both represent approaches that were completely unexpected, but have so much potential for multimodal composition. I can see myself having students use Voice Thread or compose some box logic project on their own.

What have perhaps influenced my thinking the most, are the blog postings related to video composition or image mashing in some way. These entries include MANY of my postings, since my line of inquiry often brought me there. But to highlight the posts I feel most represent my thinking, as a result of this class, I choose the three following posts:

1. My first "Vlog" entry: process and product

The Cummings video was my first attempt at mixing sound, still and moving images to creating a coherent text. Making that video gave me first hand experience with multimodal composition, which has enhanced my understanding of all I've read about video composition since making that video.

2. Reflections on my first podcast

Making this podcast was hard work, but so helpful in thinking about all the decisions involved in composition, especially when bringing multiple modes into the mix.

3. Launching Nonikwe

This wiki, that I created earlier this semester has become an integral part of my thinking. Not only does it serve as a portal to my online navigation, it allows me to bookmark online sites in a more meaningful way than de.lic.ous would in that I am constantly reconfiguring how these fields of thought are related to each other. I am so glad that I started that wiki.

Pedagogically speaking, I find the blog to be a nice medium to publish product but also showcase process. I will continue using it as a tool to push my own thinking, such as with this research blog. Also, I hope to keep using them with my students as an entre point to thinking about digital writing.

Posted by Candance Doerr at 3:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

For the past year and a half I have been a writing consultant at my university's writing center. My consulting occurs in different ways: face to face; asynchronous response; and synchronous chat. I would say that each setting brings about different writing practices on my part.

face to face consulting:

I would have to say that I prefer face-to-face consulting for two reasons: 1) because of the personal connection you establish with the person, made possible through seeing them, body/facial expression and all, and 2) because I feel that we can get so much more done.

Face to face consulting allows me to "adapt" my practices to the writer and writing situation. This is probably because I am able to communicate more quickly and am better able to "read" the person and situation. Having the person right there I am able to gauge whether I am understanding what they asked for and whether I'm giving them the feedback they were looking for, or if I need to modify my style of delivery to be more or less directive.

asynchronous feedback:

Because I'm given only a few written directives from the writer, and not nonverbal feedback, I find myself slipping into a more directive style of feedback. When I say "directive" I don't mean that I tell the writer what to do, but rather, I notice myself asking fewer questions than I do in face-to-face, probably because there is no one to answer them in the moment. Instead I find myself taking on a more reader based form of feedback in that I narrate what I think the writing is saying and where I am confused in my reading of the piece.

While I think this works most of the time, I feel that it doesn't work well in situations where the piece of writing is very poorly organized, because then it seems that all I am saying is that I don't understand. There have been two instances where I have reviewed papers where I made many comments about organization, in essence voicing that I was very confused. In those instances, the writers never showed up for the second part of the consultation, which is the live chat. My hunch tells me that my response style offended them in some way and they did not want to return.

This is where I find the online consultation to fall short of the full experience of f2f consulting. My comments on the papers mentioned above, were not stated in an offensive way, yet they may have come off that way because there was no person, not even the blinking cursor (like in the live chat experience) behind them to soften the delivery.

synchronous chat:

I find live chat feedback to be a blend of the above two forms. While I cannot see the writer, I can constantly ask the writer questions to see if I'm missing the point. Chat, because of its spontaneous form, also allows for more play with language for purposes of humor or lightening the mood of what may get too serious. Asynchronous feedback does not have that same tempo. It feels so much more formal, and as a result, the feedback comes off formal, even if I try to create a warm feel with opening and closing comments.

In thinking about my future practices of online feedback, I think I might start making fewer comments on the student's text and more comments on a separate screen, as notes to myself to address in the chat. This would allow me to familiarize myself with the text, but at the same time, it wouldn't create this formal mood, that at times may offend students.

As you can see, I'm still thinking about a lot of this.

Posted by Candance Doerr at 3:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

One of my upcoming projects involves redesigning the Minnesota Writing Project (MWP) Website. While I don't know code, I will be involved in researching the website needs and wishes of those in MWP. Designed in 2001, our website (see screen shot below) exemplifies the internet practices of web 1.0, where people used the internet as a glorified yellow pages. While this worked swell for the time, we currently feel that our site does not accurately represent who we are as an outreach organization, Nor does it do much to invite new teachers to join our network. Thus, the CI5410 task of analyzing wesite usability seems an appropriate time to begin my research on writing project website design.

To guide my inquiry into content, formatting and organization of web content, I'll be using the design questions presented in Anson, et. al (2008) Engaging Students in Digital Writing.

*** What kind of info. is present and where is it positioned?
*** What is the relationship between images and words?
*** What types of icons or navigational tools are present?
*** How accessible are other forms of information?

Minnesota Writing Project

Above is a screen shot from the current website for MWP which I'll be using as my example of poor design. I say this for a variety of reasons. First of all the content is organized for a general audience, instead of geared specifically for teachers or administrators. In this sense, our identity as an organization is largely underdeveloped. Content explaining who we are, what we do, and why teachers might be interested in us is available but not explicit. I think image placement and/or navigational icons could help with this.

For example, the primary navigation bar, shown now as purple blotches of paint, could include the major component of who/what we are, yet the Summer Invitational Institute one of our most important programs is not there. While the institute is discussed front and center, this would be the perfect place to have a photo, or better yet, slide show of photos, showing who we are or what the summer institute is.

So overall, I would say my main complaint with the MWP site is that it lack identity and purpose in that 1) the content doesn't accurately represent our organization 2) the placement of content, especially photos placed in lower right hand corner of page, does little to spur interest in our organization, and 3) the lack of a heading system that cues organization of content, makes it very easy to get lost in the site.

Red Cedar Writing Project

For my example of "good" design, I've chosen the Red Cedar Writing Project's website. What jumps out at me about this website is it placement of the teacher front and center. The image almost functions as a hook into the site, by leading you to the story about the teaching consultant who is working on the podcast. This placement of image and content, speaks volumes about what the Red Cedar project is, teachers teaching teachers.

As for organization of content, there are two main navigation bars. The top bar placed just above the photo, seems to be geared toward those outside the writing project, including info. on the summer institute to recruit new teachers. The bottom bar, placed just below the photo, seems to be geared to those teacher consultants already in the writing project, with icons linked to pages related to news, events, and related networks. There is not spatial organization cues like this on the MWP website.

This organizational formatting continues with similar black tool bars and headings continuing into the following pages, with headings at the top of each page to remind you where you are.

New York City Writing Project

Also worthy of mention is the New York City Writing Project's website. While it is very web 2.0 with various interactive options, such as blog and wiki features, its placement of info. on the home page is so busy, which intuitively I find off-putting. Even though I am an NWP insider who feels quite comfortable playing and browsing online, I feel like an outsider in need of orientation, to do anything on this website. If their purpose to to attract new teachers to their project, this site doesn't seem to me like it would be very effective in doing so.

Posted by Candance Doerr at 1:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The challenge for the composer, then, is to capture that memory-laden thrill for the viewer, inventing a uniquely visionary world from carefully chosen fragments of the existing one.

from "Box Logic" by Geoffrey Sirc in Writing New Media

Reading Geoffry Sirc's description of what he calls "box logic" has opened up new ways for me to think about video composition. First of all, it is his description of the writer not as creator of text rather as the selector and collector of statements (p.116) and his use of the box as a space to see text as a collection (p.112). In seeing text as a box, we move away from the linear norm of prose and "renew existence" (p.121) of objects by placing these words, phrases, images, sounds, etc. into new settings.

This focus on collecting as composition highlights the interpretive work that goes into choosing and layering different forms of media together such as the intermixing of sound, image, and text done in video composition. Much like in writing, Sirc claims that there is a material desire involved in this practice of collecting. (p.1190

This focus on desire, helped me to realize when I was tapping into the box logic and when I was not. For example, my first attempt was this box logic composition on ice fishing. Unlike Jen Budenski's box logic on Princesses as a cult of womandhood, my piece captures no "memory-laden thrill" and displays no interpretive insight, or as Sirc would call it "poetry" In fact, I had little desire to revise or revisit this piece even though I was interested in the topic.

All that said, I did experience much pleasure when picking and placing the material statements for the video composition below, which I argue is a form of box logic in itself. While it probably doesn't offer any interpretive insight, I do feel that it pulls together different semiotic forms to construct and capture a "memory-laden thrill" at least for those related to my son, Oliver.

In "Papie, Pizza & Poop" all of the video clips were randomly filmed. By themselves they offer no coherent narrative. Yet, pulled together under the guise of "first words" they become a collection of sound bites. The music, with its nostalgic feel, also plays into this collection of sound and adds to the memory thrill.

Papie, Pizza & Poop

Overall, I would say that my mommy blog, Oliver Haiku, is a form of box logic. It is here that I use technology to scrapbook. In so doing, I renew the practice of scrapbooking. While the materiality is different, in its digital rather than physical presence, it is still material. Most notable is the power of sound whether voice, or music and how it impacts the body via emotion. I surely could go on and on about this, but I'll stop here for now, certain to return later.

Posted by Candance Doerr at 4:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)