Quick overview
Due date: October 21
Word count: 1800-2400
Stance: your choice
Format: APA or MLA
Audience: Me
Images: 2, at most, if appropriate to your stance and audience
Due date: October 21
Word count: 1800-2400
Stance: your choice
Format: APA or MLA
Audience: Me
Images: 2, at most, if appropriate to your stance and audience
Background
Thus far, we have been engaging with a variety of pivotal readings on the intersection of technology, largely computers, and writing. We
have read how politics and sexuality are intertwined with technology,
how individuals use social networking, and how computers may be thinking a bit
too much for us.
Objective
In this literacy task, I invite you to begin a conversation regarding the role of technology in writing and
then place your educational and personal experience in conversation with either
the Selfe, Alexander, Shepherd, or McGee and Ericsson piece.
Specifically, I encourage you
to respond to one of the following prompts:
·
McGee and Ericsson invite readers to think
critically about Microsoft grammar check even going so far to argue that MSGC
undercuts best practices in teaching writing. In your writing, introduce the
McGee and Ericsson reading and sketch an argument that illustrates how a
writing teacher could effectively use MSGC to develop strong student writers.
In other words, design a lesson plan that incorporates MSGC effectively. A
stronger argument will focus attention to a specific grade level, subject, and
align the lesson plan with CCSS (for secondary schools) or the WPA Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition, version 3.0 or Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing (for
postsecondary schools).
·
McGee and Ericsson invite readers to think
critically about Microsoft grammar check even going so far to argue that MSGC
undercuts best practices in teaching writing. In your writing, explain how you adjusted the MSGC settings to
catch common writing missteps or adhere to certain guidelines (such as checking
for a serial comma or one space after a period) in our own writing. A stronger
explanation will incorporate screen shots of the adjusted settings and even
include a screen shot of your prose before and after adjusting the settings.
Finally, be aware that doing in above is explaining
and not necessarily arguing. Weave
into your paper an argument focused on how adjusting MSGC makes you a stronger
or weaker writer.
·
Shepherd invites readers to think critically about
using rhetorical elements of communicating via Facebook in first-year writing
classrooms. In your writing, introduce the Shepherd reading and draw from your own
conducted survey about Facebook and FYC. Use surveymonkey.com or a similar
survey platform to elicit responses from enough people so you feel comfortable
about making claims about how the rhetorical elements of communicating via
Facebook does or does not connect with upper-division writing classes (not FYC
classes) like our own. A stronger argument will insert data from the surveys,
such as graphs, and clearly state for the reader how the argument forwarded
stands a part from Shepherd’s argument and does not just repeat his findings
and argument.
·
Shepherd invites readers to think critically about
using rhetorical elements of communicating via Facebook in first-year writing
classrooms. In your writing, introduce the Shepherd reading and argument against
the conclusions he draws. Even though Shepherd backs his argument with
quantitative data, it is still and argument and can be carefully and ethically
refuted. Taking an opposing position, argue how the rhetorical elements of
communicating on Facebook should not be incorporating into FYC, and, more
importantly, may not align with professional documents that describe best
practices in for students and teachers in FYC (e.g., the WPA Outcomes Statement3.0 or Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing).
·
Alexander invites readers to think critically
about using a wired classroom to have conversations about sexually. In your writing, introduce the Alexander reading and specifically draw your reader’s
attention to Alexander’s argument that “talking about sexuality is tantamount
to talking about self.” Feel free to agree or disagree with this statement but
do make the argument that talking about sexuality does not have a place in a
writing classroom and offer your reader a clearly articulated reason why. A
stronger argument will focus the reader’s attention to a writing class at a
specific grade level and argue for the inclusion of more pressing content over
discussions of sexuality.
·
Alexander invites readers to think critically
about using a wired classroom to have conversations about sexually. Update his article by sketching a lesson plan which uses updated
software and assignment prompt. A stronger argument will focus reader’s
attention to a specific grade level and class and even align this updated
lesson plan with CCSS (for secondary schools) or the WPA Outcomes Statement 3.0
or Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing (for postsecondary schools).
·
Selfe undertakes the important work of reminding us that public school education is inextricably linked with politics--for better or worse. Spend time researching your state, local, or federal representatives. See if you can point to a specific representative or senator and how this person spoke about public school funding. Once you have located a specific person, start thinking about your public school experience and the quality of the classrooms, hallways, computer labs. Establish a connection in your education between politics and the classroom.
Assessing
When assessing your writing, I will be looking for you to
Good luck! I’m happy to help if you need some additional
assistance at any stage of this paper. You can reach me as well via email at Michael.rifenburg@ung.edu
or on Twitter @JMRifenburg.
No comments:
Post a Comment