This text, which was written in 1993, is a call to writing teachers that the presence of a new, electronic environment that students are writing in is is changing the way people think about rhetoric and writing. The authors, Hawisher and Moran, argue that this means a new electronic pedagogy must created that accounts for the changes in style, grammar, and language.
Based on the time period that this was written, when emailing was starting to become more popular, I think that the authors had the right idea. Online communication was proving to be a revolutionary channel for language, and thus a revolutionary change for rhetoric. Seventeen years later we see the effects of this shift to the online community, however this article can serve as a reminder as to why these changes have occurred.
Those reasons, Hawisher and Moran argue, are rooted in a variety of differences between paper-mail and electronic mail. Now people have to pay attention to issues of length, structure, and most importantly “subject” of the electronic communication. They argue that online communication is rapid, thoughtless, and colloquial, whereas the paper writer is analytical, reflective, and slow to use language. Hawisher and Moran explain that this new technology that inherently affects language should be incorporated by writing teachers, especially because” E-mail, in dissolving boundaries of time and space, breaks down some of the barriers that have long been established between students and professors” (1993, p. 635). They further argue “we believe that on-line communication has the potential to bring in voices from the margin and might, therefore, be more egalitarian than face-to-face class discussion” (1993, p. 635).
While the article doesn’t specifically mention L2 communication, it does mention how students will be empowered and how language usage will change. I believe this premise is along the same lines as Kaplan’s argument that different cultures cultivate different types of rhetoric, and rhetorical patterns are seen within a given cultures. The online community is a new culture that will repeatedly create and reinvent new rhetoric as it grows and expands. I think that this is an excellent, rhetorically neutral environment for students of all languages to come together and negotiate what culture, language, and rhetoric mean to them.
LuMing Mao might call this marriage of online communication and second language learning “togetherness in difference” (2005). A somewhat common culture lies in the electronic environment, which serves as a point for L2 students to start learning language, culture, and rhetoric from each other.
---
Hawisher, G. E. and Moran, C. (October 1993). “Electronic mail and the writing instructor. College English, 55(6), 627-643.
Kaplan, R. “Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education.” Language Learning, 16(1), 1-20.
Mao, L. (February 2005). “Rhetorical borderlands: Chinese American rhetoric in the making.” College Composition and Communication, 56(3), 426-469.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Globalization and the Online Community
This week I found an article that builds on my post from last week about the benefits of online communities, while also tying in the assumptions and context created by globalization - - a topic of discussion for the week’s readings.
In the article, the author, Anne Hewling, argues that the online context for learning is a result of globalization and the movement of people and around the world resulting in crossing cultures. In her literature review, she mentions research that addresses the problem that arose from last week’s post about some cultures not feeling comfortable in online classes:
“Morse concludes that the cultural background of students influences both how they prioritize the benefits they have gained from their online study, and how they view the challenges it posed.” (2006, p. 338)
I like how Hewling responds to this idea in her article by labeling these generalized statements as an “essentialist” approach, and it equates nationality with an exact culture. I feel like Pennycook, in this week’s article “Other Engishes,” might agree with Hewling. Pennycook argues in his paper that assuming that globalization is only driven by American culture and economics is a nationalist response. Both Pennycook and Hewling argue for a new approach to viewing the fusion of cultures that doesn’t result in something destructive.
Hewling further argues that nationality-centered assumptions restrict the view of culture in the online classroom because it assumes that each student brings their own culture as an obstacle to others, not as something that is already there to stimulate cultural education among the students. In response to this view, Helwling proposes the idea of a new “third culture” that is able to emerge from the students as a collective whole…a culture that is unique to just their class. Culture becomes something you create, not some that is inherent.
Similarly, Pennycook argues in his article that global influences throughout history have not necessarily replaced eachother; they have coexisted. While Pennycook doesn’t directly say it, I believe he is speaking the same words as Hewling – just as in an online community culture can be created, so has the culture in the global community.
I think that the processes that Penncook focuses on in his paper to argue his position- - “transgression and resistance, translation and rearticulation, transformation and reconstitution, translocalization and appropriation, transculturation and hybridization” (2007, p.30) can be applied to the online classroom to create the third culture that Hewling argues for in internet distance learning discussions.
Hewling, A. (2006). Culture in the online class: Using message analysis to look beyond nationality-based frames of reference. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 337-356.
Pennycook, A. (2007). Chapter 2: Other Englishes. Global Englishes and transcultural flows (pp. 17-35). London: Routledge.
In the article, the author, Anne Hewling, argues that the online context for learning is a result of globalization and the movement of people and around the world resulting in crossing cultures. In her literature review, she mentions research that addresses the problem that arose from last week’s post about some cultures not feeling comfortable in online classes:
“Morse concludes that the cultural background of students influences both how they prioritize the benefits they have gained from their online study, and how they view the challenges it posed.” (2006, p. 338)
I like how Hewling responds to this idea in her article by labeling these generalized statements as an “essentialist” approach, and it equates nationality with an exact culture. I feel like Pennycook, in this week’s article “Other Engishes,” might agree with Hewling. Pennycook argues in his paper that assuming that globalization is only driven by American culture and economics is a nationalist response. Both Pennycook and Hewling argue for a new approach to viewing the fusion of cultures that doesn’t result in something destructive.
Hewling further argues that nationality-centered assumptions restrict the view of culture in the online classroom because it assumes that each student brings their own culture as an obstacle to others, not as something that is already there to stimulate cultural education among the students. In response to this view, Helwling proposes the idea of a new “third culture” that is able to emerge from the students as a collective whole…a culture that is unique to just their class. Culture becomes something you create, not some that is inherent.
Similarly, Pennycook argues in his article that global influences throughout history have not necessarily replaced eachother; they have coexisted. While Pennycook doesn’t directly say it, I believe he is speaking the same words as Hewling – just as in an online community culture can be created, so has the culture in the global community.
I think that the processes that Penncook focuses on in his paper to argue his position- - “transgression and resistance, translation and rearticulation, transformation and reconstitution, translocalization and appropriation, transculturation and hybridization” (2007, p.30) can be applied to the online classroom to create the third culture that Hewling argues for in internet distance learning discussions.
Hewling, A. (2006). Culture in the online class: Using message analysis to look beyond nationality-based frames of reference. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 337-356.
Pennycook, A. (2007). Chapter 2: Other Englishes. Global Englishes and transcultural flows (pp. 17-35). London: Routledge.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Integrating Online and Classroom ESL Learning
While looking up journal articles that might support my research proposal, I came across a paper that looked at evaluated the use of the World Wide Web in assisting second language teachers.
In the article, Carpenter-Binkley and Hall (2003) construct a model for integrating a physical and Internet classroom to prove, despite the concerns among educators that the use of the Web would distract second language learners, it is possible to capitalize on the resources provided by the Web and create authentic situations in which that second language is used. In addition, they argue that the Internet provides students with the ability to create community and thus collaborate outside of the classroom (2003), creating a positive learning environment.
Carpenter-Binkley and Hall’s model includes a few key requirements for success. First, the teacher must make sure the student understands their role in using the internet, as well as create a context for why the internet is being used (for example, students may be told that they are travel agents that must put together an itinerary for a vacation in America) (2003). Their model also emphasizes the need for a sequential process for developing skills and tasks online, so that the student doesn’t feel overwhelmed and lost in all of the information offered on the Internet. Finally, it is important to provide a place online for students to reflect and communicate with each other about the language assignment (2003).
While Carpenter-Binkley and Hall are looking at French-as-a-second-language students, I feel like this can also be applied to the English-as-a-second-language students. Allowing students to explore the applications of English online and communicate with each other in English through online forums could allow further educational growth. As Hyland explains in his article, many of the learning problems L2 learners experience stem from cultural differences (2003). The Internet is multicultural mode of research and communication, and if harnessed correctly by the educator, it could be a tool that helps teachers reconcile the differences in culture and learning preferences.
An online discussion board that allows L2 students to communicate with each other may provide a safer place to ask peers questions and practice written English, without the obstacle of accents or judgment. A conflict arises between Carpenter-Binkley and Hall and Hyland where peer criticism is concerned. Hyland acknowledges “peer response has been criticized as culturally inappropriate for learners from collectivist cultures” (2003, p. 42). If this is the case, in order for the online community to be successful when applied to ESL students the forum would need to be free of personal criticism, and focused on group discussion and problem solving. The use of the Internet by L2 students might also help provide resources for finding writing topics that are cross cultural - - bridging the gap between satisfying course writing requirements and writing about a topic the L2 student understands.
Carpenter-Binkley, S., and Hall, J. E. (2003). Sound pedagogical practice on the Web. The French Review, 76(3), 564-579.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writers. In Second Language Writing
(31-53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
In the article, Carpenter-Binkley and Hall (2003) construct a model for integrating a physical and Internet classroom to prove, despite the concerns among educators that the use of the Web would distract second language learners, it is possible to capitalize on the resources provided by the Web and create authentic situations in which that second language is used. In addition, they argue that the Internet provides students with the ability to create community and thus collaborate outside of the classroom (2003), creating a positive learning environment.
Carpenter-Binkley and Hall’s model includes a few key requirements for success. First, the teacher must make sure the student understands their role in using the internet, as well as create a context for why the internet is being used (for example, students may be told that they are travel agents that must put together an itinerary for a vacation in America) (2003). Their model also emphasizes the need for a sequential process for developing skills and tasks online, so that the student doesn’t feel overwhelmed and lost in all of the information offered on the Internet. Finally, it is important to provide a place online for students to reflect and communicate with each other about the language assignment (2003).
While Carpenter-Binkley and Hall are looking at French-as-a-second-language students, I feel like this can also be applied to the English-as-a-second-language students. Allowing students to explore the applications of English online and communicate with each other in English through online forums could allow further educational growth. As Hyland explains in his article, many of the learning problems L2 learners experience stem from cultural differences (2003). The Internet is multicultural mode of research and communication, and if harnessed correctly by the educator, it could be a tool that helps teachers reconcile the differences in culture and learning preferences.
An online discussion board that allows L2 students to communicate with each other may provide a safer place to ask peers questions and practice written English, without the obstacle of accents or judgment. A conflict arises between Carpenter-Binkley and Hall and Hyland where peer criticism is concerned. Hyland acknowledges “peer response has been criticized as culturally inappropriate for learners from collectivist cultures” (2003, p. 42). If this is the case, in order for the online community to be successful when applied to ESL students the forum would need to be free of personal criticism, and focused on group discussion and problem solving. The use of the Internet by L2 students might also help provide resources for finding writing topics that are cross cultural - - bridging the gap between satisfying course writing requirements and writing about a topic the L2 student understands.
Carpenter-Binkley, S., and Hall, J. E. (2003). Sound pedagogical practice on the Web. The French Review, 76(3), 564-579.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writers. In Second Language Writing
(31-53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)