SGarza.TheoryBackgroundResearch History

Hide minor edits - Show changes to output - Cancel

June 25, 2007, at 02:26 AM CST by 64.12.116.144 -
Changed line 107 from:
How students see writing and images within a social network setting such as Myspace or Facebook determines the types of visual rhetoric they engage inside and outside of the classroom. The position of the student within the composition classroom also depends on how they interpret these two programs as being used within an academic setting. The reason why I use four types of visual/verbal collaboration here is to help to illustrate that the nature of visual rhetoric in a multimodal composition classroom where students use programs such as Myspace and Facebook to construct an identity within a virtual environment. I am also curious as to see which type they find more useful or desirable within such programs.
to:
How students see writing and images within a social network setting such as Myspace or Facebook determines the types of visual rhetoric they engage inside and outside of the classroom. The position of the student within the composition classroom also depends on how they interpret these two programs as being used within an academic setting. The reason why I use four types of visual/verbal collaboration here is to help to illustrate that the nature of visual rhetoric in a multimodal composition classroom where students use programs such as Myspace and Facebook is to construct an identity within a virtual environment. I am also curious as to see which type they find more useful or desirable within such programs.
June 25, 2007, at 02:24 AM CST by 64.12.116.144 -
Changed lines 105-106 from:
[[Attach:verbalvisuala.doc | '''4 types of visual and verbal collborations''']]
to:
[[Attach:verbalvisuala.doc | '''4 types of visual and verbal collaborations''']]
June 25, 2007, at 02:19 AM CST by 64.12.116.144 -
Added line 107:
How students see writing and images within a social network setting such as Myspace or Facebook determines the types of visual rhetoric they engage inside and outside of the classroom. The position of the student within the composition classroom also depends on how they interpret these two programs as being used within an academic setting. The reason why I use four types of visual/verbal collaboration here is to help to illustrate that the nature of visual rhetoric in a multimodal composition classroom where students use programs such as Myspace and Facebook to construct an identity within a virtual environment. I am also curious as to see which type they find more useful or desirable within such programs.
June 25, 2007, at 02:18 AM CST by 64.12.116.144 -
Added lines 87-106:
Andrea Hermann (1991) asserts that -assisted writing changes the nature of the composition classroom, including the social context within which writing is taught and learned, the expectations, and the (Hermann, p. 151). The decentering of the classroom, where the students actually participate in the formation of knowledge as learners (Foster, 2006), requires a new perspective of writing and how writing is done. Marion Harris Fey (1993) claims that [t] he virtual classroom of computer networking offers a unique space for pedagogy grounded in that can help to shape learning (Fey, 1993, p.5). The role of the teacher becomes that of facilitator in a classroom were students learn, research, and write together. Of course, according to Bruffee (1984), the concept of collaboration is not simply placing students together and telling them to write about something. An important factor in this type of social-networked virtual environment is dialogue. Bob Bergland (1996) states that using combined with electronic databases and the Internet can better understand both positions and their discourse community and thus potentially write better (Bergland, 1996, p. 5). Richard Holeton (1997) proposes a -virtual where the still meet in small-group, face-to-face workshops to discuss their essay (Holeton, 1997, p. 7). The mixture of both in-class planning for students and online collaboration (i.e. emails, Myspace, etc.) creates an interesting environment for students to write and learn in (Maria Clayton, 2003). John Eckman (1996) has examined the use of hypertext in the composition classroom and the concept of agency within student writing. Eckman says, in the composition classroom offer an opportunity for the uncovering of networks of all the while maintaining an awareness of the space they take up (Eckman, 1996, p. 10). These of are an argument within themselves because they essentially contain many of the elements that usually motivates people to communicate or write to one another.

Mark Warschauer (1996) examines the factors for ESL students when learning and writing within a computerized, networked classroom (Warschauer, 1996, p. 38). Depending on the types of activities that invite ESL students to participate within a discourse community could determine how learn the language and make meaning with it. Kristine L. Blair (1997) argues:

The need to work with student writers to develop revised
evaluation practices and criteria that acknowledges
collaborative writing, revising, and responding within an
electronic medium as well as the ability to integrate visuals,
texts, and sound, in order to address the shifting definitions
of literacy fostered by electronic writing classrooms (Blair, p.
3).

Blair raises a good point when suggests that the term literacy
needs within a composition classroom that incorporates some level of electronic social-networking program such as Myspace or Facebook. In essence, the composition classroom becomes more than a but a class where students engage, participate, and immerse themselves in the discourse. By using the concepts and terminology they are learning in their other discourse communities (i.e. history, science, psychology, etc.), students can use these various lenses to view other discourse that lie outside the academic discourse community. In that case, the composition classroom becomes a space, a space (Kramsch & Lam, 1999; Moje, Ciechanowski, Kramer, Ellis, Carrillo, & Collazo, 2004; Davis, Bazzi, & Cho, 2005), where stduetns engage in activities such as conducting primary research that involves them venturing virtually and physically out of the classroom to conduct interviews, surveys, and locate local documents within their various communities of knowledge (Foster, 2006). This entails an alternative approach to viewing images and text together and how they interact within a virtual environment.

Susan M. Hagan (2007) claims, /verbal collaboration is most useful because images and text contain complementary differences that produce synergistic (Hagan, p. 58). Hagan questions the relationship between the text and the image, in motivation produce dissimilar patterns of jumping around an image, which lead to personal gestalt understanding of that (p. 59). four types of visual/verbal collaboration: Typographic interplay, interplay in parallel, interplay in sequence, and interweaving. Typographic interplay the meaning potential between typographic shape and acts with the perceptual (p. 67). Each type adds a new dimension in which students make meaning using visual and verbal signals. She identifies these four types as connecting together with the complementary differences between image and text to build cross-modal (p. 67).
Below is example of the four types of visual/verbal collaborations:

[[Attach:verbalvisuala.doc | '''4 types of visual and verbal collborations''']]
June 21, 2007, at 06:40 PM CST by 165.95.11.226 -
Changed lines 83-84 from:
Either definition still points to the concept of a social network where writing and communication can occur. With the increase of digital classrooms on many college campuses across the nation, how do students view things such as page design, the use of images, and the type of writing they are doing on a daily basis? How do within a multimodal composition classroom view programs such as Myspace or Facebook as useful learning and writing tools?
to:
Either definition still points to the concept of a social network where writing and communication can occur. With the increase of digital classrooms on many college campuses across the nation, how do students view things such as page design, the use of images, and the type of writing they are doing on a daily basis? How do students within a multimodal composition classroom view programs such as Myspace or Facebook as useful learning and writing tools?
June 21, 2007, at 06:37 PM CST by 165.95.11.226 -
Changed lines 81-84 from:
This program is associated within an academic setting that creates a greater social network of "who's who" on a university's campus. How much more "academic" Facebook is than Myspace is a good question. To answer this question is largely due to the fact that it is much smaller in scope (university-based), which yields its functions for a more directed purpose.

Either definition still points to the concept of a social network where writing and communication can occur. With increase of digital classrooms on many college campuses across
the nation, how do students view things such as page design, the use of images, and the type of writing they are doing on a daily basis? How do students' within a multimodal composition classroom view programs such as Myspace or Facebook as useful learning and writing tools?
to:
This program is associated within an academic setting that creates a greater social network of on a campus. How is Facebook more than Myspace? Facebook is much smaller in scope (university-based) and its main function is to provide a professional social network.

Either definition still points to the concept of
a social network where writing and communication can occur. With the increase of digital classrooms on many college campuses across the nation, how do students view things such as page design, the use of images, and the type of writing they are doing on a daily basis? How do within a multimodal composition classroom view programs such as Myspace or Facebook as useful learning and writing tools?
Changed line 73 from:
Facebook, similar to Myspace, is defined on Wikipedia as:
to:
Facebook, similar to Myspace, is defined on Wikipedia as:
Changed line 62 from:
This the definition of Myspace.com on Wikipedia:
to:
This is the definition of Myspace.com on Wikipedia:
Deleted lines 86-114:
''Methodology''

With the help of Vickie Machen (a first-year composition instructor here at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi), I will be looking at Vickie's use of an activity that incorporates Myspace and/or Facebook within the freshmen composition classroom as a learning and writing medium (tool) and how do students view that type of writing and communication compared to the type that is expected of them within the academic discourse community. Vickie's prompt for this activity is below:

Myspace/Facebook
The purpose of this activity is to explore the role and effects of social networking.
Volunteers will share their Myspace or Facebook page with the class and address the following:
*Page choices of pictures/text/ you made them
*Responses /negative
*How social networking has affected your life
*Advice about social networking to others
The participants in this study are Vickie's freshmen 1301 composition students. All of these students are enrolled in Vickie's summer I composition course. The survey was based on a Likert Model Scale and contained 14 questions about Myspace and Facebook. The survey did not ask the participants their age, ethnicity, or gender. To keep the objectivity of the research, I had Vickie hand out the surveys and then collect them for me. Once she collected them, she placed them in a sealed manila envelope and left them for me a locked mailbox cabinet. A total of 18 out 22 students participated in answering the survey. For an example of the survey used in this study, please see Appendix A at the end of this essay. Before I conducted the survey, I asked Vickie three questions in a short email interview. Below are the interview questions and the answers she provided me with:

Question 1:
*How do you define visual rhetoric in your classroom?
Answer:
*"Visual Rhetoric: persuasive visual communication using various media including but not limited to Internet, print, film, broadcast, billboards, etc."
Question 2:
*What is the purpose of this Myspace/Facebook activity?
Answer:
*"Purpose: to explore various means of effective visual communication--purpose, audience, message, means of persuasion."
Question 3:
*How does this activity meet the learning objectives?
Answer:
*"Learning Objectives: Increase awareness of the role visual rhetoric plays in all forms of communication whether textual or virtual."
Vickie's answers helped me to understand the context, and reason, why she was having her freshmen engage in this activity. The survey below describes the data that I retrieved from the surveys:
Primary research results from 1301:

[[Attach:surveygklolk.doc | '''survey''']]
Added line 99:
Changed line 106 from:
*Purpose: to explore various means of effective visual communication--purpose, audience, message, means of persuasion
to:
*"Purpose: to explore various means of effective visual communication--purpose, audience, message, means of persuasion."
Changed line 110 from:
*Learning Objectives: Increase awareness of the role visual rhetoric plays in all forms of communication whether textual or virtual
to:
*"Learning Objectives: Increase awareness of the role visual rhetoric plays in all forms of communication whether textual or virtual."
Changed lines 83-114 from:
Either definition still points to the concept of a social network where writing and communication can occur. With increase of digital classrooms on many college campuses across the nation, how do students view things such as page design, the use of images, and the type of writing they are doing on a daily basis? How do students' within a multimodal composition classroom view programs such as Myspace or Facebook as useful learning and writing tools?
to:
Either definition still points to the concept of a social network where writing and communication can occur. With increase of digital classrooms on many college campuses across the nation, how do students view things such as page design, the use of images, and the type of writing they are doing on a daily basis? How do students' within a multimodal composition classroom view programs such as Myspace or Facebook as useful learning and writing tools?

''Background research in multimodal, virtual environment composition classrooms''

''Methodology''

With the help of Vickie Machen (a first-year composition instructor here at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi), I will be looking at Vickie's use of an activity that incorporates Myspace and/or Facebook within the freshmen composition classroom as a learning and writing medium (tool) and how do students view that type of writing and communication compared to the type that is expected of them within the academic discourse community. Vickie's prompt for this activity is below:

Myspace/Facebook
The purpose of this activity is to explore the role and effects of social networking.
Volunteers will share their Myspace or Facebook page with the class and address the following:
*Page choices of pictures/text/ you made them
*Responses /negative
*How social networking has affected your life
*Advice about social networking to others
The participants in this study are Vickie's freshmen 1301 composition students. All of these students are enrolled in Vickie's summer I composition course. The survey was based on a Likert Model Scale and contained 14 questions about Myspace and Facebook. The survey did not ask the participants their age, ethnicity, or gender. To keep the objectivity of the research, I had Vickie hand out the surveys and then collect them for me. Once she collected them, she placed them in a sealed manila envelope and left them for me a locked mailbox cabinet. A total of 18 out 22 students participated in answering the survey. For an example of the survey used in this study, please see Appendix A at the end of this essay. Before I conducted the survey, I asked Vickie three questions in a short email interview. Below are the interview questions and the answers she provided me with:
Question 1:
*How do you define visual rhetoric in your classroom?
Answer:
*"Visual Rhetoric: persuasive visual communication using various media including but not limited to Internet, print, film, broadcast, billboards, etc."
Question 2:
*What is the purpose of this Myspace/Facebook activity?
Answer:
*Purpose: to explore various means of effective visual communication--purpose, audience, message, means of persuasion
Question 3:
*How does this activity meet the learning objectives?
Answer:
*Learning Objectives: Increase awareness of the role visual rhetoric plays in all forms of communication whether textual or virtual
Vickie's answers helped me to understand the context, and reason, why she was having her freshmen engage in this activity. The survey below describes the data that I retrieved from the surveys:
Primary research results from 1301:

[[Attach:surveygklolk.doc | '''survey''']]
Changed lines 69-70 from:
are being added constantly (Wikipedia.org, 2007).
to:
are being added constantly (''Wikipedia.org'', 2007).
Changed lines 79-80 from:
other better (Wikipedia.org, 2007).
to:
other better (''Wikipedia.org'', 2007).
Changed lines 3-4 from:
From a current-traditionalist perspective, teaching writing within the composition classroom is process driven and concentrates mostly on stylized conventions and correct use of grammar within an academic setting. In many ways, students are fed a pre-constructed identity that defines academic writing from a set of ideological notions of the dominant culture. The shift from viewing writing as an individual act to a social act is a move in composition pedagogy that lends itself to a humanistic or social constructivist theory (Murray, 1983; Bruffee, 1984; Imel, 1991; Lanham, 1994; Buchanan, 1995; Shauf, 2001). James (1984) definition of a New Rhetorician adds a social-cognitive dimension to teaching writing by allowing for a more student-centered classroom for learning to occur through dialogue and interaction. Linda Flower (1994) views the writing process from a literacy standpoint, where she argues, as an and as a move within a discourse that involves more than viewing writing from a static point in time and sees it as being more interactive and spread out over time (Flower, 1994, p.20). When viewing writing from a literacy standpoint rather than language and skills acquisition, as Flower suggests, the definition of communication and making meaning within a discourse community involves the social and cognitive construction of knowledge. However, simply saying is a social does not really mean anything if the type of assignments or activities do not reflect the type of writing that students find useful (i.e. using dialogue to build on previous knowledge, developing the types of questions that will help to shape their writing at a later time within the semester, as well as determine what type of research and point(s) they are trying to make within their writing, meaning making, that fits within a certain discourse community are in or are about to enter). John Trimbur (2004) says, [I] ndividuals do not simply ''acquire'' literacy but actually ''build'' for themselves the tools to produce (p. 262).
to:
From a current-traditionalist perspective, teaching writing within the composition classroom is process driven and concentrates mostly on stylized conventions and correct use of grammar within an academic setting. In many ways, students are fed a pre-constructed identity that defines academic writing from a set of ideological notions of the dominant culture. The shift from viewing writing as an individual act to a social act is a move in composition pedagogy that lends itself to a humanistic or social constructivist theory (Murray, 1983; Bruffee, 1984; Imel, 1991; Lanham, 1994; Buchanan, 1995; Shauf, 2001). James (1984) definition of a New Rhetorician adds a social-cognitive dimension to teaching writing by allowing for a more student-centered classroom for learning to occur through dialogue and interaction. Linda Flower (1994) views the writing process from a literacy standpoint, where she argues, as an and as a move within a discourse that involves more than viewing writing from a static point in time and sees it as being more interactive and spread out over time (Flower, 1994, p.20). When viewing writing from a literacy standpoint rather than language and skills acquisition, as Flower suggests, the definition of communication and making meaning within a discourse community involves the social and cognitive construction of knowledge. However, simply saying is a social does not really mean anything if the type of assignments or activities do not reflect the type of writing that students find useful (i.e. using dialogue to build on previous knowledge, developing the types of questions that will help to shape their writing at a later time within the semester, as well as determine what type of research and point(s) they are trying to make within their writing, meaning making, that fits within a certain discourse community are in or are about to enter). John Trimbur (2004) says, [I] ndividuals do not simply ''acquire'' literacy but actually ''build'' for themselves the tools to produce (p. 262). These tools (i.e. drawings, writing, etc.) determine how an individual makes meaning within a larger social context.
Changed lines 62-64 from:
.com (or MySpace) is a free service that uses the Internet for online communication through an interactive network of photos, weblogs, user profiles, e-mail, web forums, and groups, as well as other media formats. This all-inclusive service is sometimes called a social networking interface. MySpace is a very active site, and additions and new features are being added constantly.

facebook is a book that is made up of photographs of individuals along with their names
. Facebooks are often published at the start of the academic year by the administrations of colleges and universities, with the intention of helping students, faculty, and staff to get to know each other better.
to:
This the definition of Myspace.com on Wikipedia:
MySpace.com (or MySpace) is a free service that uses the
Internet for online communication through an interactive network
of photos, weblogs, user profiles, e-mail, web forums, and
groups, as well as other media formats
. This all-inclusive
service is sometimes called a social networking interface
.
MySpace is a very active site, and additions and new features
are being added constantly (Wikipedia.org, 2007).

Myspace is essentially a large social network environment where individuals can share pictures, writing, videos, and information about themselves or events
. I have had students create a Myspace page to post their writing on for my 1302 composition class. When viewed this way, Myspace can be seen as an alternate medium in which to display/publish/share their knowledge and information with a larger audience.

Facebook, similar to Myspace, is defined on Wikipedia as:
A facebook is a book that is made up of photographs of
individuals along with their names. Facebooks are often
published at the start of the academic year by the
administrations of colleges and universities, with the intention
of helping students, faculty, and staff to get to know each
other better (Wikipedia.org, 2007).

This program is associated within an academic setting that creates a greater social network of "who's who" on a university's campus. How much more "academic" Facebook is than Myspace is a good question. To answer this question is largely due to the fact that it is much smaller in scope (university-based), which yields its functions for a more directed purpose.

Either definition still points to the concept of a social network where writing and communication can occur. With increase of digital classrooms on many college campuses across the nation, how do students view things such as page design, the use of images, and the type of writing they are doing on a daily basis? How do students' within a multimodal composition classroom view programs such as Myspace or Facebook as useful learning and writing tools?
Added lines 59-64:

''What is Myspace and Facebook?''

.com (or MySpace) is a free service that uses the Internet for online communication through an interactive network of photos, weblogs, user profiles, e-mail, web forums, and groups, as well as other media formats. This all-inclusive service is sometimes called a social networking interface. MySpace is a very active site, and additions and new features are being added constantly.

facebook is a book that is made up of photographs of individuals along with their names. Facebooks are often published at the start of the academic year by the administrations of colleges and universities, with the intention of helping students, faculty, and staff to get to know each other better.
Changed lines 5-6 from:
How students make meaning within a text usually depends on how they view themselves, and their position, within certain discourse communities. For instance, if Student A (i.e. a chemistry major) writes about ''Subject X'' (i.e. the use of antibiotics in marine life for Biology class) in a certain way within a certain discourse community that student's writing is molded on what that student knows, or is beginning to become familiar with. ''Student A'' has to make meaning that fits that discourse purpose. In doing so, ''Student A'' creates an identity using that knowledge and vocabulary, as well as their own. The meaning that ''Student A'' makes depends on their involvement, or level of participation, within that community. If ''Student A's'' meaning about ''Subject X'' is not fully appreciated or understood by other members within that discourse community it might be because ''Student A'' is making that meaning from a peripheral place within that community. Shifting from a cognitive paradigm to a more social one involves not only building on the knowledge that students posses, but also allowing them to participate in a way where they feel they are the author of that knowledge. This concept is built on a social constructivist framework where multiple-literacies are allowed to act and interact through various connective networks.
to:
How students make meaning within a text usually depends on how they view themselves, and their position, within certain discourse communities. For instance, if ''Student A'' (i.e. a chemistry major) writes about ''Subject X'' (i.e. the use of antibiotics in marine life for Biology class) in a certain way within a certain discourse community that student's writing is molded on what that student knows, or is beginning to become familiar with. ''Student A'' has to make meaning that fits that discourse purpose. In doing so, ''Student A'' creates an identity using that knowledge and vocabulary, as well as their own. The meaning that ''Student A'' makes depends on their involvement, or level of participation, within that community. If ''Student A's'' meaning about ''Subject X'' is not fully appreciated or understood by other members within that discourse community it might be because ''Student A'' is making that meaning from a peripheral place within that community. Shifting from a cognitive paradigm to a more social one involves not only building on the knowledge that students posses, but also allowing them to participate in a way where they feel they are the author of that knowledge. This concept is built on a social constructivist framework where multiple-literacies are allowed to act and interact through various connective networks.
Changed lines 5-6 from:
How students make meaning within a text usually depends on how they view themselves, and their position, within certain discourse communities. For instance, if Student A (i.e. a chemistry major) writes about Subject X (i.e. the use of antibiotics in marine life for Biology class) in a certain way within a certain discourse community that student's writing is molded on what that student knows, or is beginning to become familiar with. Student A has to make meaning that fits that discourse purpose. In doing so, Student A creates an identity using that knowledge and vocabulary, as well as their own. The meaning that Student A makes depends on their involvement, or level of participation, within that community. If Student A's meaning about Subject X is not fully appreciated or understood by other members within that discourse community it might be because Student A is making that meaning from a peripheral place within that community. Shifting from a cognitive paradigm to a more social one involves not only building on the knowledge that students posses, but also allowing them to participate in a way where they feel they are the author of that knowledge. This concept is built on a social constructivist framework where multiple-literacies are allowed to act and interact through various connective networks.
to:
How students make meaning within a text usually depends on how they view themselves, and their position, within certain discourse communities. For instance, if Student A (i.e. a chemistry major) writes about ''Subject X'' (i.e. the use of antibiotics in marine life for Biology class) in a certain way within a certain discourse community that student's writing is molded on what that student knows, or is beginning to become familiar with. ''Student A'' has to make meaning that fits that discourse purpose. In doing so, ''Student A'' creates an identity using that knowledge and vocabulary, as well as their own. The meaning that ''Student A'' makes depends on their involvement, or level of participation, within that community. If ''Student A's'' meaning about ''Subject X'' is not fully appreciated or understood by other members within that discourse community it might be because ''Student A'' is making that meaning from a peripheral place within that community. Shifting from a cognitive paradigm to a more social one involves not only building on the knowledge that students posses, but also allowing them to participate in a way where they feel they are the author of that knowledge. This concept is built on a social constructivist framework where multiple-literacies are allowed to act and interact through various connective networks.
Changed lines 3-4 from:
From a current-traditionalist perspective, teaching writing within the composition classroom is process driven and concentrates mostly on stylized conventions and correct use of grammar within an academic setting. In many ways, students are fed a pre-constructed identity that defines academic writing from a set of ideological notions of the dominant culture. The shift from viewing writing as an individual act to a social act is a move in composition pedagogy that lends itself to a humanistic or social constructivist theory (Murray, 1983; Bruffee, 1984; Imel, 1991; Lanham, 1994; Buchanan, 1995; Shauf, 2001). James (1984) definition of a New Rhetorician adds a social-cognitive dimension to teaching writing by allowing for a more student-centered classroom for learning to occur through dialogue and interaction. Linda Flower (1994) views the writing process from a literacy standpoint, where she argues, as an and as a move within a discourse that involves more than viewing writing from a static point in time and sees it as being more interactive and spread out over time (Flower, 1994, p.20). When viewing writing from a literacy standpoint rather than language and skills acquisition, as Flower suggests, the definition of communication and making meaning within a discourse community involves the social and cognitive construction of knowledge. However, simply saying is a social does not really mean anything if the type of assignments or activities do not reflect the type of writing that students find useful (i.e. using dialogue to build on previous knowledge, developing the types of questions that will help to shape their writing at a later time within the semester, as well as determine what type of research and point(s) they are trying to make within their writing, meaning making, that fits within a certain discourse community are in or are about to enter). John Trimbur (2004) says, [I] ndividuals do not simply ''acquire'' literacy but actually ''build'' for themselves the tools to produce (p. 262).
to:
From a current-traditionalist perspective, teaching writing within the composition classroom is process driven and concentrates mostly on stylized conventions and correct use of grammar within an academic setting. In many ways, students are fed a pre-constructed identity that defines academic writing from a set of ideological notions of the dominant culture. The shift from viewing writing as an individual act to a social act is a move in composition pedagogy that lends itself to a humanistic or social constructivist theory (Murray, 1983; Bruffee, 1984; Imel, 1991; Lanham, 1994; Buchanan, 1995; Shauf, 2001). James (1984) definition of a New Rhetorician adds a social-cognitive dimension to teaching writing by allowing for a more student-centered classroom for learning to occur through dialogue and interaction. Linda Flower (1994) views the writing process from a literacy standpoint, where she argues, as an and as a move within a discourse that involves more than viewing writing from a static point in time and sees it as being more interactive and spread out over time (Flower, 1994, p.20). When viewing writing from a literacy standpoint rather than language and skills acquisition, as Flower suggests, the definition of communication and making meaning within a discourse community involves the social and cognitive construction of knowledge. However, simply saying is a social does not really mean anything if the type of assignments or activities do not reflect the type of writing that students find useful (i.e. using dialogue to build on previous knowledge, developing the types of questions that will help to shape their writing at a later time within the semester, as well as determine what type of research and point(s) they are trying to make within their writing, meaning making, that fits within a certain discourse community are in or are about to enter). John Trimbur (2004) says, [I] ndividuals do not simply ''acquire'' literacy but actually ''build'' for themselves the tools to produce (p. 262).
Changed line 54 from:
*By using a medium like Myspace and/or Facebook within the composition classroom are students given the opportunity to interpret *what an academic writer is or should be within a certain context defined/reinforced by the pedagogy/ perspective.
to:
*By using a medium like Myspace and/or Facebook within the composition classroom are students given the opportunity to interpret what an academic writer is or should be within a certain context defined/reinforced by the pedagogy/ perspective.
Changed lines 40-43 from:
Gunther Kress (2003) interprets writing similarly by dealing with various forms of texts within a genre (Kress, 2003, p. 53). However, this description of writing still views writing within the prescribed academic world where there is little room for multiple-literacies to flourish. J. L. (2004) are offers a perspective of what types of literacies do students bring with them to the classroom (Lemke, 2004, p. 71). The literacies that freshmen students encounter when they enter a discourse community do not replace, and should not replace, the literacies that they bring with them. Because many composition classrooms are becoming more digital and employing the use of programs such as WebCT, Wiki, and Moodle into the pedagogy, the traditional definition of rhetoric is also changing. I mentioned the uses of argumentation earlier because it is an important aspect of this change. Many studies focus on how students learn, understand, and use visual rhetoric within their writing. Most of the time teachers describe visual rhetoric from the standpoint that involves having the students locate an image or images and have them incorporate it within their writing. In an extreme case, a teacher might even design a whole writing assignment around visually analyzing an image or a series of images. I am not claiming that analyzing visual rhetoric is useless, if that is the purpose of the class, but I do think that it can be misused. For instance, when will students actually be asked to analyze an image or picture? Describing data findings on a chart or graph or explaining the purpose of a model is the two examples that I can think of right now. However, with the Internet in the classroom, this is starting to change the way teachers and students view research, communication, and writing.

Charles A. Hill's (2003) assertion
most basic, and perhaps the most misguided, of these assumptions is that we could ever draw a distinct line between the visual and the verbal, or the concentrating on one can or should require the (Hill, 2003, p. 109). point is valid in the field of composition, and Trimbur echoes this as well:
to:
Gunther Kress (2003) interprets writing similarly by dealing with various forms of texts within a genre (Kress, 2003, p. 53). However, this description of writing still views writing within the prescribed academic world where there is little room for multiple-literacies to flourish. J. L. (2004) are description offers a perspective of what types of literacies do students bring with them to the classroom (Lemke, 2004, p. 71). The literacies that freshmen students encounter when they enter a discourse community do not replace, and should not replace, the literacies that they bring with them. Because many composition classrooms are becoming digital and employing the use of programs such as WebCT, Wiki, and Moodle into the pedagogy, the traditional definition of rhetoric is also changing. I mentioned the uses of argumentation earlier because it is an important aspect of this change. Many studies focus on how students learn, understand, and use visual rhetoric within their writing. Most of the time teachers describe visual rhetoric from the standpoint that involves having the students locate an image or images and in which they must then analyze and then incorporate within their writing. In an extreme case, a teacher might even design a whole writing assignment around analyzing an image or a series of images. I am not claiming that analyzing pictures and images (i.e. advertisements, commercials, billboards, etc.) is useless for rhetorical purposes, if that is the purpose of the class, but I do think that it can be misused. For instance, when will students actually be asked to analyze an image or picture in their academic life? Describing data findings on a chart or graph or explaining the purpose of a model are two examples that I can think of right now. However, with the Internet in the classroom, this is starting to change the way teachers and students view research, communication, writing, and the use, and purpose, of rhetoric in a digital world.

Charles A. Hill (2003) asserts
most basic, and perhaps the most misguided, of these assumptions is that we could ever draw a distinct line between the visual and the verbal, or the concentrating on one can or should require the (Hill, 2003, p. 109). point is valid in the field of composition, and Trimbur echoes this as well:
Changed line 47 from:
say, the juxtaposition of articles, photographs, and
to:
say, the juxtaposition of articles, photographs, and
Changed line 52 from:
The idea of legions of literacies because an important aspect to consider in world where the virtual environment is now taking up time and space within the composition classroom. Websites such as Myspace and Facebook are now a common visitor to the classroom. The idea of the world looking in us as we look out onto it is becoming a reality in multimodal classrooms. Many teachers interpret this as an intrusion into the personalized space where learning is supposed to occur. Within the following study, I plan to examine questions such as:
to:
This harkens back to description of legions of literacies. An important aspect to consider in a world where virtual environments are now taking up time and space within the composition classroom is how teachers, as well as students, view, use, and understand this medium within the context of reader, writer, and audience. The idea of the world looking in on us we looking back out onto it is becoming a reality in multimodal classrooms. Websites such as Myspace and Facebook are now a common visitor in the composition classroom. Many teachers interpret this as an intrusion into the personalized space where learning is supposed to occur. However, these programs do represent a social network where students write and communicate with one another. Like Wiki, Moodle, and WebCT, Myspace and Facebook is an alternative medium in which students can expand their audience base. Within the following study, I plan to examine questions such as:
Changed line 54 from:
*By using a medium like Myspace and/or Facebook within the composition classroom are students given the opportunity to interpret what an academic writer is or should be within a certain context defined/reinforced by the pedagogy/ perspective.
to:
*By using a medium like Myspace and/or Facebook within the composition classroom are students given the opportunity to interpret *what an academic writer is or should be within a certain context defined/reinforced by the pedagogy/ perspective.
Changed lines 57-58 from:
For the purposes of this study I will define visual rhetoric as involving the cognitive and social processes of using, understanding, and analyzing an optically, or other sensory perceived, image (i.e. writing, drawing etc.) within a certain contextualized framework. For the most part, I think that the main concern should not fall on visual rhetoric in the composition classroom. Understanding the pedagogical models should be the main concern for any teacher to begin with and nor end there. Using visuals within the classroom should be part of the teaching arsenal but not simply as an activity or assignment.
to:

For the purposes of this study I will define visual rhetoric as involving the cognitive and social processes of using, understanding, and analyzing an optically, or other sensory perceived, image (i.e. writing, drawing etc.) within a certain contextualized framework. For the most part, I think that the main concern should not fall on visual rhetoric in the composition classroom. Understanding the pedagogical models should be the main concern for any teacher to begin with but not end there. Using visuals within the classroom should be part of the teaching arsenal but not simply as an activity or assignment.
Changed lines 13-14 from:
The connection between the reader (or teacher, depending on which model you choose to use), the author (or student), and the text (or subject) appears too distinct in their purpose, which, in essence, are dialectal to an extent but not necessarily dialogical because they can only communicate directly back to one another through evocation or invocation (Ede & Lunsford, 1984). What can happen is that teachers concentrate on the content, not necessarily the meaning on why something is done the way it is, and end up placing students into groups answer questions that the teacher already has fixed answers for. Another example of having students engage in peripheral roles involves building assignments and activities around multiple perspectives or cause and effect arguments that complicate the type of writing, and communication, which is expected of them within other discourse communities. Thus the audiences are fictionalized (evoked/invoked) and they become tangled in the multitude of words and meanings and arguments that their teacher expects them to put together in order to form their own argument. Even the role of argument is questionable within the composition classroom. Frans H. Van Eemeren and Rob Goortendorst (2004) describe argumentation this way:
to:
The connection between the reader (or teacher, depending on which model you choose to use), the author (or student), and the text (or subject) appears too distinct in their purpose, which, in essence, are dialectal to an extent but not necessarily dialogical because they can only communicate directly back to one another through evocation or invocation (Ede & Lunsford, 1984). What can happen is that teachers concentrate on the content, not necessarily the meaning on why something is done the way it is, and end up placing students into groups to answer questions in which the teacher already knows the answers. Another example of having students engage in peripheral roles involves building assignments and activities around multiple perspectives or cause and effect arguments that complicate the type of writing, and communication, which is expected of them within other discourse communities. Thus the audiences are fictionalized (evoked/invoked) and they become tangled in the multitude of words and meanings and arguments that their teacher expects them to put together in order to form their own argument. Even the role of argument is questionable within the composition classroom. Frans H. Van Eemeren and Rob Goortendorst (2004) describe argumentation this way:
Changed lines 3-4 from:
From a current-traditionalist perspective, teaching writing within the composition classroom is process driven and concentrates mostly on stylized conventions and correct use of grammar within an academic setting. In many ways, students are fed a pre-constructed identity that defines academic writing from a set of ideological notions of the dominant culture. The shift from viewing writing as an individual act to a social act is a move in composition pedagogy that lends itself to a humanistic or social constructivist theory (Murray, 1983; Bruffee, 1984; Imel, 1991; Lanham, 1994; Buchanan, 1995; Shauf, 2001). James (1984) definition of a New Rhetorician adds a social-cognitive dimension to teaching writing by allowing for a more student-centered classroom for learning to occur through dialogue and interaction. Linda Flower (1994) views the writing process from a literacy standpoint, where she argues, as an and as a move within a discourse that involves more than viewing writing from a static point in time and sees it as being more interactive and spread out over time (Flower, 1994, p.20). When viewing writing from a literacy standpoint rather than language and skills acquisition, as Flower suggests, the definition of communication and making meaning within a discourse community involves the social and cognitive construction of knowledge. However, simply saying is a social does not really mean anything if the type of assignments or activities do not reflect the type of writing that students find useful (i.e. using dialogue to build on previous knowledge, developing the types of questions that will help to shape their writing at a later time within the semester, as well as determine what type of research and point(s) they are trying to make within their writing, meaning making, that fits within a certain discourse community are in or are about to enter). John Trimbur (2004) says, [I] ndividuals do not simply acquire literacy but actually build for themselves the tools to produce (p. 262).
to:
From a current-traditionalist perspective, teaching writing within the composition classroom is process driven and concentrates mostly on stylized conventions and correct use of grammar within an academic setting. In many ways, students are fed a pre-constructed identity that defines academic writing from a set of ideological notions of the dominant culture. The shift from viewing writing as an individual act to a social act is a move in composition pedagogy that lends itself to a humanistic or social constructivist theory (Murray, 1983; Bruffee, 1984; Imel, 1991; Lanham, 1994; Buchanan, 1995; Shauf, 2001). James (1984) definition of a New Rhetorician adds a social-cognitive dimension to teaching writing by allowing for a more student-centered classroom for learning to occur through dialogue and interaction. Linda Flower (1994) views the writing process from a literacy standpoint, where she argues, as an and as a move within a discourse that involves more than viewing writing from a static point in time and sees it as being more interactive and spread out over time (Flower, 1994, p.20). When viewing writing from a literacy standpoint rather than language and skills acquisition, as Flower suggests, the definition of communication and making meaning within a discourse community involves the social and cognitive construction of knowledge. However, simply saying is a social does not really mean anything if the type of assignments or activities do not reflect the type of writing that students find useful (i.e. using dialogue to build on previous knowledge, developing the types of questions that will help to shape their writing at a later time within the semester, as well as determine what type of research and point(s) they are trying to make within their writing, meaning making, that fits within a certain discourse community are in or are about to enter). John Trimbur (2004) says, [I] ndividuals do not simply ''acquire'' literacy but actually ''build'' for themselves the tools to produce (p. 262).
Changed lines 3-6 from:
From a current-traditionalist perspective, teaching writing within the composition classroom is process driven and concentrates mostly on stylized conventions and correct use of grammar within an academic setting. In many ways, students are fed a pre-constructed identity that defines academic writing from a set of ideological notions of the dominant culture. The shift from viewing writing as an individual act to a social act is a move in composition pedagogy that lends itself to a humanistic or social constructivist theory (Murray, 1983; Bruffee, 1984; Imel, 1991; Lanham, 1994; Buchanan, 1995; Shauf, 2001). James (1984) definition of a New Rhetorician adds a social-cognitive dimension to teaching writing by allowing for a more student-centered classroom for learning to occur through dialogue and interaction. Linda Flower (1994) views the writing process from a literacy standpoint, where she argues, as an and as a move within a discourse that involves more than viewing writing from a static point in time and sees it as being more interactive and spread out over time (Flower, 1994, p.20). When viewing writing from a literacy standpoint rather than a language and skills acquisition, as Flower suggests, the definition of communication and making meaning within a discourse community involves the social and cognitive construction of knowledge. However, simply saying is a social does not really mean anything if the type of assignments or activities do not reflect the type of writing that students can find useful (i.e. using dialogue to build on previous knowledge, developing the types of questions that will help to shape their writing at a later time within the semester, as well as determine what type of research and point(s) they are trying to make within their writing, meaning making, that fits within a certain discourse community they are in or are about to enter).

How students make meaning within a text usually depends on how they view themselves, and their position, within certain discourse communities. For instance, if ''Student A'' (i.e. a chemistry major) writes about ''Subject X'' (i.e. Biology) in a certain way within a certain discourse community that student's writing is molded on what that student knows, or is beginning to become familiar with. ''Student A'' has to make meaning that fits
that discourse purpose. In doing so, ''Student A'' creates an identity using that knowledge and vocabulary, as well as their own. The meaning that ''Student A'' makes depends on their involvement, or level of participation, within that community. If ''Student A's'' meaning about ''Subject X'' is not fully appreciated or understood by other members within that discourse community it might be because ''Student A'' is making that meaning from a peripheral place within that community. Shifting from a cognitive paradigm to a more social one involves not only building on the knowledge that students posses, but also allowing them to participate in a way where they feel they are the author of that knowledge. This concept is built on a social constructivist framework where multiple-literacies are allowed to act and interact through various connective networks.
to:
From a current-traditionalist perspective, teaching writing within the composition classroom is process driven and concentrates mostly on stylized conventions and correct use of grammar within an academic setting. In many ways, students are fed a pre-constructed identity that defines academic writing from a set of ideological notions of the dominant culture. The shift from viewing writing as an individual act to a social act is a move in composition pedagogy that lends itself to a humanistic or social constructivist theory (Murray, 1983; Bruffee, 1984; Imel, 1991; Lanham, 1994; Buchanan, 1995; Shauf, 2001). James (1984) definition of a New Rhetorician adds a social-cognitive dimension to teaching writing by allowing for a more student-centered classroom for learning to occur through dialogue and interaction. Linda Flower (1994) views the writing process from a literacy standpoint, where she argues, as an and as a move within a discourse that involves more than viewing writing from a static point in time and sees it as being more interactive and spread out over time (Flower, 1994, p.20). When viewing writing from a literacy standpoint rather than language and skills acquisition, as Flower suggests, the definition of communication and making meaning within a discourse community involves the social and cognitive construction of knowledge. However, simply saying is a social does not really mean anything if the type of assignments or activities do not reflect the type of writing that students find useful (i.e. using dialogue to build on previous knowledge, developing the types of questions that will help to shape their writing at a later time within the semester, as well as determine what type of research and point(s) they are trying to make within their writing, meaning making, that fits within a certain discourse community are in or are about to enter). John Trimbur (2004) says, [I] ndividuals do not simply acquire literacy but actually build for themselves the tools to produce (p. 262).

How students make meaning within a text usually depends on how they view themselves, and their position, within certain discourse communities. For instance, if Student A (i.e. a chemistry major) writes about Subject X (i.e. the use of antibiotics in marine life for Biology class) in a certain way within a certain discourse community
that student's writing is molded on what that student knows, or is beginning to become familiar with. Student A has to make meaning that fits that discourse purpose. In doing so, Student A creates an identity using that knowledge and vocabulary, as well as their own. The meaning that Student A makes depends on their involvement, or level of participation, within that community. If Student A's meaning about Subject X is not fully appreciated or understood by other members within that discourse community it might be because Student A is making that meaning from a peripheral place within that community. Shifting from a cognitive paradigm to a more social one involves not only building on the knowledge that students posses, but also allowing them to participate in a way where they feel they are the author of that knowledge. This concept is built on a social constructivist framework where multiple-literacies are allowed to act and interact through various connective networks.
Changed lines 8-10 from:

The connective networks I mention above does not necessarily mean that students simply get into groups, collaborate, and try to answer preconceived teacher-based prompts. A short-coming of this pedagogical approach within the classroom can be seen as interpreting the basic "triangle" model below for what it is (teacher can also be substituted for reader, student for author, and subject for text, if viewed from a pedagogical perspective):
to:
The connective networks I mention above does not necessarily mean that students simply get into groups, collaborate, and try to answer preconceived teacher-based prompts. A short-coming of this pedagogical approach within the classroom can be seen as interpreting the basic model below for what it is (teacher can also be substituted for reader, student for author, and subject for text, if viewed from a pedagogical perspective):
Changed lines 13-29 from:
The connection between the reader (or teacher, depending on which model you choose to use), the author (or student), and the text (or subject) appears too distinct in their purpose, which, in essence, are dialectal to an extent but not necessarily dialogical because they can only communicate directly back to one another through evocation or invocation (Ede & Lunsford, 1984). What can happen is that teachers concentrate on the content, not necessarily the meaning on why something is done the way it is, and end up placing students into groups answer questions that the teacher already has fixed answers for. Another example of having students engage in peripheral roles involves building assignments and activities around multiple perspectives or cause and effect arguments that complicate the type of writing, and communication, which is expected of them within other discourse communities. Thus the students' audiences are fictionalized (evoked/invoked) and they become tangled in the multitude of words and meanings and arguments that their teacher expects them to put together in order to form their own argument. Even the role of argument is questionable within the composition classroom. Frans H. Van Eemeren and Rob Goortendorst (2004) describe argumentation this way:

Argumentation is not just the expression of an individual
assessment, but a contribution to a communication process between
persons or groups who exchange ideas with one another in order to
resolve a difference of opinion.
Some approaches to argumentative
discourse and texts abstract from the way in which the
communication process is conducted, and certain components of the

argumentative discourse or text are just distinguished as, for
instance, and premises, irrespective of
the communication process they are a part of" (Van Eemeren &
Goortendorst, 2004, p.55).

Many times students become bogged with the texts and the meaning, or purpose, of the assignment or activity because
, like ''Student A'', their role is only peripheral in actually constructing the knowledge they are supposed to use to within that discourse community.

David Foster (2006) offers an alternative view of writing and constructing
knowledge, calling it [t]ransformative which involves the students participating and sharing in of knowledgeable (Foster, 2006, p117). Foster essentially builds on of proximal where the students engage in activities and assignments that actually reflect the type of writing and learning they need to enter a certain discourse community. Foster examines what occurs around the writing that students, as well, as the decisions and choices they have to make when they are writing.
to:
The connection between the reader (or teacher, depending on which model you choose to use), the author (or student), and the text (or subject) appears too distinct in their purpose, which, in essence, are dialectal to an extent but not necessarily dialogical because they can only communicate directly back to one another through evocation or invocation (Ede & Lunsford, 1984). What can happen is that teachers concentrate on the content, not necessarily the meaning on why something is done the way it is, and end up placing students into groups answer questions that the teacher already has fixed answers for. Another example of having students engage in peripheral roles involves building assignments and activities around multiple perspectives or cause and effect arguments that complicate the type of writing, and communication, which is expected of them within other discourse communities. Thus the audiences are fictionalized (evoked/invoked) and they become tangled in the multitude of words and meanings and arguments that their teacher expects them to put together in order to form their own argument. Even the role of argument is questionable within the composition classroom. Frans H. Van Eemeren and Rob Goortendorst (2004) describe argumentation this way:

Argumentation is not just the expression of an individual
assessment, but a contribution to a communication process
between persons or groups who exchange ideas with one another in
order to resolve a difference of opinion. Some approaches to
argumentative discourse and texts abstract from the way in which
the communication process is conducted, and certain components
of the argumentative discourse or text are just distinguished
as, for instance, and premises,
irrespective of the communication process they are a part of
(Van Eemeren & Goortendorst
, 2004, p.55).

Many times students become bogged with the texts and
the meaning, or purpose, of the assignment or activity because, like Student A, their role is only peripheral in actually constructing the knowledge they are supposed to use to within that discourse community.

David Foster (2006) offers an alternative view of writing and constructing knowledge, calling it [t] ransformative which involves
the students participating and sharing in of knowledgeable (Foster, 2006, p117). Foster essentially builds on of proximal where the students engage in activities and assignments that actually reflect the type of writing and learning they need to enter a certain discourse community. Foster examines what occurs around the writing that students do as well as the decisions and choices they have to make when they are writing. James E. Porter and Patricia A. Sullivan (2004) state:

The object of analysis for those in rhetoric and composition is
not only the written text, but the writer-in-the-act-of-writing,
and also the audience. We examine the text, not as an autonomous
structure, so much as a stage in an overall process of action
involving the writer and the audience, as well as numerous other
discourses. Rhetoric complicates discourse study by involving
matters related to situation and process-the setting for
discourse as well means by which it is produced and received
(Porter & Sullivan, 2004, p. 292).

Gunther Kress (2003) interprets writing similarly by dealing with various forms of texts within a genre (Kress, 2003, p. 53). However, this description of writing still views writing within the prescribed academic world where there is little room for multiple-literacies to flourish. J. L. (2004) are offers a perspective of what types of literacies do students bring with them to the classroom (Lemke, 2004, p. 71). The literacies that freshmen students encounter when they enter a discourse community do not replace, and should not replace, the literacies that they bring with them. Because many composition classrooms are becoming more digital and employing the use of programs such as WebCT, Wiki, and Moodle into the pedagogy, the traditional definition of rhetoric is also changing. I mentioned the uses of argumentation earlier because it is an important aspect of this change. Many studies focus on how students learn, understand, and use visual rhetoric within their writing. Most of the time teachers describe visual rhetoric from the standpoint that involves having the students locate an image or images and have them incorporate it within their writing. In an extreme case, a teacher might even design a whole writing assignment around visually analyzing an image or a series of images. I am not claiming that analyzing visual rhetoric is useless, if that is the purpose of the class, but I do think that it can be misused. For instance, when will students actually be asked to analyze an image or picture? Describing data findings on a chart or graph or explaining the purpose of a model is the two examples that I can think of right now. However, with the Internet in the classroom, this is starting to change the way teachers and students view research, communication, and writing.

Charles A. Hill's (2003) assertion most basic, and perhaps the most misguided, of these assumptions is that we could ever draw a distinct line between the visual and the verbal, or the concentrating on one can or should require the (Hill, 2003, p. 109). point is valid in the field of composition, and Trimbur echoes this as well:

The complicated relationship between reading and seeing text and
image raises interesting questions for writing studies about how
we might think about the page as a unit of discourse-about how,
say, the juxtaposition of articles, photographs, and
advertisements on a newspaper or magazine page creates larger
messages than any single item can convey (Trimbur, 2004, p.
268).

The idea of legions of literacies because an important aspect to consider in world where the virtual environment is now taking up time and space within the composition classroom. Websites such as Myspace and Facebook are now a common visitor to the classroom. The idea of the world looking in us as we look out onto it is becoming a reality in multimodal classrooms. Many teachers interpret this as an intrusion into the personalized space where learning is supposed to occur. Within the following study, I plan to examine questions such as:
*How and why do students make the distinction between images and text in a hypertextual setting?
*By using a medium like Myspace and/or Facebook within the composition classroom are students given the opportunity to interpret what an academic writer is or should be within a certain context defined/reinforced by the pedagogy/ perspective.
*By using a medium like myspace.com and/or Facebook, how are the lines between various styles and conventions of writing complicated?
*How does visual rhetoric and/or the incorporation of visual rhetoric within the classroom affect the student's identity or position within the classroom using myspace.com and/or Facebook?
For the purposes of this study I will define visual rhetoric as involving the cognitive and social processes of using, understanding, and analyzing an optically, or other sensory perceived, image (i.e. writing, drawing etc.) within a certain contextualized framework. For the most part, I think that the main concern should not fall on visual rhetoric in the composition classroom. Understanding the pedagogical models should be the main concern for any teacher to begin with and nor end there. Using visuals within the classroom should be part of the teaching arsenal but not simply as an activity or assignment.
Changed lines 3-4 from:
From a current-traditionalist perspective, teaching writing within the composition classroom is process driven and concentrates mostly on stylized conventions and correct use of grammar within an academic setting. In many ways, students are fed a pre-constructed identity that defines academic writing from a set of ideological notions of the dominant culture. The shift from viewing writing as an individual act to a social act is a move in composition pedagogy that lends itself to a humanistic or social constructivist theory (Murray, 1983; Bruffee, 1984; Lanham, 1994; Buchanan, 1995; Shauf, 2001). James (1984) definition of a New Rhetorician adds a social-cognitive dimension to teaching writing by allowing for a more student-centered classroom for learning to occur through dialogue and interaction. Linda Flower (1994) views the writing process from a literacy standpoint, where she argues, as an and as a move within a discourse that involves more than viewing writing from a static point in time and sees it as being more interactive and spread out over time (Flower, 1994, p.20). When viewing writing from a literacy standpoint rather than a language and skills acquisition, as Flower suggests, the definition of communication and making meaning within a discourse community involves the social and cognitive construction of knowledge. However, simply saying is a social does not really mean anything if the type of assignments or activities do not reflect the type of writing that students can find useful (i.e. using dialogue to build on previous knowledge, developing the types of questions that will help to shape their writing at a later time within the semester, as well as determine what type of research and point(s) they are trying to make within their writing, meaning making, that fits within a certain discourse community they are in or are about to enter).
to:
From a current-traditionalist perspective, teaching writing within the composition classroom is process driven and concentrates mostly on stylized conventions and correct use of grammar within an academic setting. In many ways, students are fed a pre-constructed identity that defines academic writing from a set of ideological notions of the dominant culture. The shift from viewing writing as an individual act to a social act is a move in composition pedagogy that lends itself to a humanistic or social constructivist theory (Murray, 1983; Bruffee, 1984; Imel, 1991; Lanham, 1994; Buchanan, 1995; Shauf, 2001). James (1984) definition of a New Rhetorician adds a social-cognitive dimension to teaching writing by allowing for a more student-centered classroom for learning to occur through dialogue and interaction. Linda Flower (1994) views the writing process from a literacy standpoint, where she argues, as an and as a move within a discourse that involves more than viewing writing from a static point in time and sees it as being more interactive and spread out over time (Flower, 1994, p.20). When viewing writing from a literacy standpoint rather than a language and skills acquisition, as Flower suggests, the definition of communication and making meaning within a discourse community involves the social and cognitive construction of knowledge. However, simply saying is a social does not really mean anything if the type of assignments or activities do not reflect the type of writing that students can find useful (i.e. using dialogue to build on previous knowledge, developing the types of questions that will help to shape their writing at a later time within the semester, as well as determine what type of research and point(s) they are trying to make within their writing, meaning making, that fits within a certain discourse community they are in or are about to enter).
Changed lines 3-4 from:
From a current-traditionalist perspective, teaching writing within the composition classroom is process driven and concentrates mostly on stylized conventions and correct use of grammar within an academic setting. In many ways, students are fed a pre-constructed identity that defines academic writing from a set of ideological notions of the dominant culture. The shift from viewing writing as an individual act to a social act is a move in composition pedagogy that lends itself to a humanistic or social constructivist theory (Lanham, 1994; Buchanan, 1995; Shauf, 2001). James (1984) definition of a New Rhetorician adds a social-cognitive dimension to teaching writing by allowing for a more student-centered classroom for learning to occur through dialogue and interaction. Linda Flower (1994) views the writing process from a literacy standpoint, where she argues, as an and as a move within a discourse that involves more than viewing writing from a static point in time and sees it as being more interactive and spread out over time (Flower, 1994, p.20). When viewing writing from a literacy standpoint rather than a language and skills acquisition, as Flower suggests, the definition of communication and making meaning within a discourse community involves the social and cognitive construction of knowledge. However, simply saying is a social does not really mean anything if the type of assignments or activities do not reflect the type of writing that students can find useful (i.e. using dialogue to build on previous knowledge, developing the types of questions that will help to shape their writing at a later time within the semester, as well as determine what type of research and point(s) they are trying to make within their writing, meaning making, that fits within a certain discourse community they are in or are about to enter).
to:
From a current-traditionalist perspective, teaching writing within the composition classroom is process driven and concentrates mostly on stylized conventions and correct use of grammar within an academic setting. In many ways, students are fed a pre-constructed identity that defines academic writing from a set of ideological notions of the dominant culture. The shift from viewing writing as an individual act to a social act is a move in composition pedagogy that lends itself to a humanistic or social constructivist theory (Murray, 1983; Bruffee, 1984; Lanham, 1994; Buchanan, 1995; Shauf, 2001). James (1984) definition of a New Rhetorician adds a social-cognitive dimension to teaching writing by allowing for a more student-centered classroom for learning to occur through dialogue and interaction. Linda Flower (1994) views the writing process from a literacy standpoint, where she argues, as an and as a move within a discourse that involves more than viewing writing from a static point in time and sees it as being more interactive and spread out over time (Flower, 1994, p.20). When viewing writing from a literacy standpoint rather than a language and skills acquisition, as Flower suggests, the definition of communication and making meaning within a discourse community involves the social and cognitive construction of knowledge. However, simply saying is a social does not really mean anything if the type of assignments or activities do not reflect the type of writing that students can find useful (i.e. using dialogue to build on previous knowledge, developing the types of questions that will help to shape their writing at a later time within the semester, as well as determine what type of research and point(s) they are trying to make within their writing, meaning making, that fits within a certain discourse community they are in or are about to enter).
Changed line 28 from:
David Foster (2006) offers an alternative view of writing and constructing knowledge, calling it [t]ransformative which involves the students participating and sharing in of knowledgeable (Foster, 2006, p117). Foster essentially builds on of proximal where the students engage in activities and assignments that actually reflect the type of writing and learning they need to enter a certain discourse community.
to:
David Foster (2006) offers an alternative view of writing and constructing knowledge, calling it [t]ransformative which involves the students participating and sharing in of knowledgeable (Foster, 2006, p117). Foster essentially builds on of proximal where the students engage in activities and assignments that actually reflect the type of writing and learning they need to enter a certain discourse community. Foster examines what occurs around the writing that students, as well, as the decisions and choices they have to make when they are writing.
Changed lines 3-4 from:
From a current-traditionalist perspective, teaching writing within the composition classroom is process driven and concentrates mostly on stylized conventions and correct use of grammar within an academic setting. In many ways, students are fed a pre-constructed identity that defines academic writing from a set of ideological notions of the dominant culture. The shift from viewing writing as an individual act to a social act is a move in composition pedagogy that lends itself to a humanistic or social constructivist theory (Lanham, 1994; Buchanan, 1995; Shauf, 2001). James (1984) definition of a New Rhetorician adds a social-cognitive dimension to teaching writing by allowing for a more student-centered classroom for learning to occur through dialogue and interaction. Linda Flower (1994) views the writing process from a literacy standpoint, where she argues, as an and as a move within a discourse that involves more than viewing writing from a static point in time and sees it as being more interactive and spread out over time (Flower, 1994, p.20). When viewing writing from a literacy standpoint rather than a language and skills acquisition, as Flower suggests, the definition of communication and making meaning within a discourse community involves the social and cognitive construction of knowledge. However, simply saying is a social does not really mean anything if the type of assignments or activities reflect the type of writing that students can find useful (i.e. using dialogue to build on previous knowledge, developing the types of questions that will help to shape their writing at a later time within the semester, as well as determine what type of research and point(s) they are trying to make within their writing, meaning making, that fits within a certain discourse community they are in or are about to enter).
to:
From a current-traditionalist perspective, teaching writing within the composition classroom is process driven and concentrates mostly on stylized conventions and correct use of grammar within an academic setting. In many ways, students are fed a pre-constructed identity that defines academic writing from a set of ideological notions of the dominant culture. The shift from viewing writing as an individual act to a social act is a move in composition pedagogy that lends itself to a humanistic or social constructivist theory (Lanham, 1994; Buchanan, 1995; Shauf, 2001). James (1984) definition of a New Rhetorician adds a social-cognitive dimension to teaching writing by allowing for a more student-centered classroom for learning to occur through dialogue and interaction. Linda Flower (1994) views the writing process from a literacy standpoint, where she argues, as an and as a move within a discourse that involves more than viewing writing from a static point in time and sees it as being more interactive and spread out over time (Flower, 1994, p.20). When viewing writing from a literacy standpoint rather than a language and skills acquisition, as Flower suggests, the definition of communication and making meaning within a discourse community involves the social and cognitive construction of knowledge. However, simply saying is a social does not really mean anything if the type of assignments or activities do not reflect the type of writing that students can find useful (i.e. using dialogue to build on previous knowledge, developing the types of questions that will help to shape their writing at a later time within the semester, as well as determine what type of research and point(s) they are trying to make within their writing, meaning making, that fits within a certain discourse community they are in or are about to enter).
Changed lines 5-6 from:
How students make meaning within a text usually depends on how they view themselves, and their position, within certain discourse communities. For instance, if ''Student A'' (i.e. a chemistry major) writes about ''Subject X'' (i.e. Biology) in a certain way within a certain discourse community that student's writing is molded on what that student knows, or is beginning to become familiar with. ''Student A'' has to make meaning that fits that discourse purpose. In doing so, ''Student A'' creates an identity using that knowledge and vocabulary. The meaning that ''Student A'' makes depends on their involvement, or level of participation, within that community. If ''Student A's'' meaning about ''Subject X'' is not fully appreciated or understood by other members within that discourse community it might be because ''Student A'' is making that meaning from a peripheral place within that community. Shifting from a cognitive paradigm to a more social one involves not only building on the knowledge that students posses, but also allowing them to participate in a way where they feel they are the author of that knowledge. This concept is built on a social constructivist framework where multiple-literacies are allowed to act and interact through various connective networks.
to:
How students make meaning within a text usually depends on how they view themselves, and their position, within certain discourse communities. For instance, if ''Student A'' (i.e. a chemistry major) writes about ''Subject X'' (i.e. Biology) in a certain way within a certain discourse community that student's writing is molded on what that student knows, or is beginning to become familiar with. ''Student A'' has to make meaning that fits that discourse purpose. In doing so, ''Student A'' creates an identity using that knowledge and vocabulary, as well as their own. The meaning that ''Student A'' makes depends on their involvement, or level of participation, within that community. If ''Student A's'' meaning about ''Subject X'' is not fully appreciated or understood by other members within that discourse community it might be because ''Student A'' is making that meaning from a peripheral place within that community. Shifting from a cognitive paradigm to a more social one involves not only building on the knowledge that students posses, but also allowing them to participate in a way where they feel they are the author of that knowledge. This concept is built on a social constructivist framework where multiple-literacies are allowed to act and interact through various connective networks.
Changed lines 11-12 from:
[[Attach:triangleeei.doc | '''the triangle''']]
to:
[[Attach:triangleeeia.doc | '''the triangle''']]
Changed lines 11-12 from:
[[Attach:triangleee.doc | '''the triangle''']]
to:
[[Attach:triangleeei.doc | '''the triangle''']]
Changed lines 24-25 from:
Goortendorst, p.55).
to:
Goortendorst, 2004, p.55).
Changed lines 5-6 from:
How students make meaning within a text usually depends on how they view themselves, and their position, within certain discourse communities. For instance, if Student A (i.e. a chemistry major) writes about Subject X (i.e. Biology) in a certain way within a certain discourse community that student's writing is molded on what that student knows, or is beginning to become familiar with. Student A has to make meaning that fits that discourse purpose. In doing so, Student A creates an identity using that knowledge and vocabulary. The meaning that Student A makes depends on their involvement, or level of participation, within that community. If Student A's meaning about Subject X is not fully appreciated or understood by other members within that discourse community it might be because Student A is making that meaning from a peripheral place within that community. Shifting from a cognitive paradigm to a more social one involves not only building on the knowledge that students posses, but also allowing them to participate in a way where they feel they are the author of that knowledge. This concept is built on a social constructivist framework where multiple-literacies are allowed to act and interact through various connective networks.
to:
How students make meaning within a text usually depends on how they view themselves, and their position, within certain discourse communities. For instance, if ''Student A'' (i.e. a chemistry major) writes about ''Subject X'' (i.e. Biology) in a certain way within a certain discourse community that student's writing is molded on what that student knows, or is beginning to become familiar with. ''Student A'' has to make meaning that fits that discourse purpose. In doing so, ''Student A'' creates an identity using that knowledge and vocabulary. The meaning that ''Student A'' makes depends on their involvement, or level of participation, within that community. If ''Student A's'' meaning about ''Subject X'' is not fully appreciated or understood by other members within that discourse community it might be because ''Student A'' is making that meaning from a peripheral place within that community. Shifting from a cognitive paradigm to a more social one involves not only building on the knowledge that students posses, but also allowing them to participate in a way where they feel they are the author of that knowledge. This concept is built on a social constructivist framework where multiple-literacies are allowed to act and interact through various connective networks.
Changed lines 26-27 from:
Many times students become bogged with the texts and the meaning, or purpose, of the assignment or activity because, like Student A, their role is only peripheral in actually constructing the knowledge they are supposed to use to within that discourse community.
to:
Many times students become bogged with the texts and the meaning, or purpose, of the assignment or activity because, like ''Student A'', their role is only peripheral in actually constructing the knowledge they are supposed to use to within that discourse community.
Changed line 28 from:
David Foster (2006) offers an alternative view of writing and constructing knowledge, calling it [t] transformative which involves the students participating and sharing in of knowledgeable (Foster, 2006, p117). Foster essentially builds on of proximal where the students engage in activities and assignments that actually reflect the type of writing and learning they need to enter a certain discourse community.
to:
David Foster (2006) offers an alternative view of writing and constructing knowledge, calling it [t]ransformative which involves the students participating and sharing in of knowledgeable (Foster, 2006, p117). Foster essentially builds on of proximal where the students engage in activities and assignments that actually reflect the type of writing and learning they need to enter a certain discourse community.
Changed lines 15-17 from:
Argumentation is not just the expression of an individual assessment, but a contribution to a communication process between persons or groups who exchange ideas with one another in order to resolve a difference of opinion. Some approaches to argumentative discourse and texts abstract from the way in which the communication process is conducted, and certain components of the argumentative discourse or text are just distinguished as, for instance, and premises, irrespective of the communication process they are a part of" (Van Eemeren & Goortendorst, p.55).

Many times students become bogged with the texts
and the meaning, or purpose, of the assignment or activity because, like Student A, their role is only peripheral in actually constructing the knowledge they are supposed to use to within that discourse community.
to:
Argumentation is not just the expression of an individual
assessment, but a contribution to a communication process between
persons or groups who exchange ideas with one another in order to
resolve a difference of opinion. Some approaches to argumentative
discourse and texts abstract from the way in which the
communication process is conducted, and certain components of the
argumentative discourse or text are just distinguished as, for
instance,
and premises, irrespective of
the communication process they are a part of" (Van Eemeren &
Goortendorst, p.55).

Many times students become bogged with the texts and the meaning, or purpose, of the assignment or activity because, like Student A, their role is only peripheral in actually constructing the knowledge they are supposed to use to within that discourse community.

David Foster (2006) offers an alternative view of writing and constructing knowledge, calling it [t] transformative which involves the students participating and sharing in of knowledgeable (Foster, 2006, p117). Foster essentially builds on of proximal where the students engage in activities and assignments that actually reflect the type of writing and learning they need to enter a certain discourse community.
Changed lines 3-4 from:
From a current-traditionalist perspective, teaching writing within the composition classroom is process driven and concentrates mostly on stylized conventions and correct use of grammar within an academic setting. In many ways, students are fed a pre-constructed identity that defines academic writing from a set of ideological notions of the dominant culture. The shift from viewing writing as an individual act to a social act is a move in composition pedagogy that lends itself to a humanistic or social constructivist theory (Lanham, 1994; Buchanan, 1995; Shauf, 2001). James (1984) definition of a New Rhetorician adds a social-cognitive dimension to teaching writing by allowing for a more student-centered classroom for learning to occur through dialogue and interaction. Linda Flower (1994) views the writing process from a literacy standpoint, where she argues, as an and as a move within a discourse that involves more than viewing writing from a static point in time and sees it as being more interactive and spread out over time (Flower, 1994, p.20). When viewing writing from a literacy standpoint rather than a language and skills acquisition, as Flower suggests, the definition of communication and making meaning within a discourse community involves the social and cognitive construction of knowledge. However, simply saying is a social does not really mean anything if the type of assignments or activities reflect the type of writing that students can find useful (i.e. using dialogue to build on previous knowledge, developing the types of questions that will help to shape their writing at a later time within the semester, as well as determine what type of research and point(s) they are trying to make within their writing, meaning making, that fits within a certain discourse community are in or are about to enter).
to:
From a current-traditionalist perspective, teaching writing within the composition classroom is process driven and concentrates mostly on stylized conventions and correct use of grammar within an academic setting. In many ways, students are fed a pre-constructed identity that defines academic writing from a set of ideological notions of the dominant culture. The shift from viewing writing as an individual act to a social act is a move in composition pedagogy that lends itself to a humanistic or social constructivist theory (Lanham, 1994; Buchanan, 1995; Shauf, 2001). James (1984) definition of a New Rhetorician adds a social-cognitive dimension to teaching writing by allowing for a more student-centered classroom for learning to occur through dialogue and interaction. Linda Flower (1994) views the writing process from a literacy standpoint, where she argues, as an and as a move within a discourse that involves more than viewing writing from a static point in time and sees it as being more interactive and spread out over time (Flower, 1994, p.20). When viewing writing from a literacy standpoint rather than a language and skills acquisition, as Flower suggests, the definition of communication and making meaning within a discourse community involves the social and cognitive construction of knowledge. However, simply saying is a social does not really mean anything if the type of assignments or activities reflect the type of writing that students can find useful (i.e. using dialogue to build on previous knowledge, developing the types of questions that will help to shape their writing at a later time within the semester, as well as determine what type of research and point(s) they are trying to make within their writing, meaning making, that fits within a certain discourse community they are in or are about to enter).
Changed lines 3-4 from:
From a current-traditionalist perspective, teaching writing within the composition classroom is process driven and concentrates mostly on stylized conventions and correct use of grammar within an academic setting. In many ways, students are fed a pre-constructed identity that defines academic writing from a set of ideological notions of the dominant culture. The shift from viewing writing as an individual act to a social act is a move in composition pedagogy that lends itself to a humanistic or social constructivist theory (Lanham, 1994; Buchanan, 1995; Shauf, 2001). James (1984) definition of a New Rhetorician adds a social-cognitive dimension to teaching writing by allowing for a more student-centered classroom for learning to occur through dialogue and interaction. Linda Flower (1994) views the writing process from a literacy standpoint, where she argues, as an and as a move within a discourse that involves more than viewing writing from a static point in time and sees it as being more interactive and spread out over time (Flower, 1994, p.20). When viewing writing from a literacy standpoint rather than a language and skills acquisition, as Flower suggests, the definition of communication and making meaning within a discourse community involves the social and cognitive construction of knowledge.
to:
From a current-traditionalist perspective, teaching writing within the composition classroom is process driven and concentrates mostly on stylized conventions and correct use of grammar within an academic setting. In many ways, students are fed a pre-constructed identity that defines academic writing from a set of ideological notions of the dominant culture. The shift from viewing writing as an individual act to a social act is a move in composition pedagogy that lends itself to a humanistic or social constructivist theory (Lanham, 1994; Buchanan, 1995; Shauf, 2001). James (1984) definition of a New Rhetorician adds a social-cognitive dimension to teaching writing by allowing for a more student-centered classroom for learning to occur through dialogue and interaction. Linda Flower (1994) views the writing process from a literacy standpoint, where she argues, as an and as a move within a discourse that involves more than viewing writing from a static point in time and sees it as being more interactive and spread out over time (Flower, 1994, p.20). When viewing writing from a literacy standpoint rather than a language and skills acquisition, as Flower suggests, the definition of communication and making meaning within a discourse community involves the social and cognitive construction of knowledge. However, simply saying is a social does not really mean anything if the type of assignments or activities reflect the type of writing that students can find useful (i.e. using dialogue to build on previous knowledge, developing the types of questions that will help to shape their writing at a later time within the semester, as well as determine what type of research and point(s) they are trying to make within their writing, meaning making, that fits within a certain discourse community are in or are about to enter).
Changed lines 11-12 from:
[['''Attach:triangleee.doc | the triangle''']]
to:
[[Attach:triangleee.doc | '''the triangle''']]
Changed lines 11-17 from:
%center%Text
\
\
\
\
\
%left%Reader %right%Author
to:
[['''Attach:triangleee.doc | the triangle''']]
Changed lines 3-37 from:
Axiom:
*Composition instructors should provide an atmosphere where students are allowed the opportunity to fully explore and develop their identity within a new discourse community.
Assumptions:
*Students are fed a pre-constructed identity of what an academic writer is and what
academic writing is.
*By using a medium like myspace.com and/or Facebook within the composition classroom, students are given the opportunity to interpret what an academic writer
is or should be within a certain context defined/reinforced by the pedagogy/ perspective.
*By using a medium like myspace.com and/or Facebook
, the lines between various styles/conventions of writing become complicated.
*From
a pedagogical standpoint:
** (2003) dealing with various forms of texts within a genre (p. 53).
** (2004) are in dealing with the changing of
writing and teaching writing within the classroom (p. 71).
** (2003) a pedagogy of visual (p.111).
Hill's assertion: most basic, and perhaps the most misguided, of these assumptions is that we could ever draw a distinct line between the visual and the verbal, or the concentrating on one can or should require the (Hill, 2003, p. 109).


''Social constructivism and activity theory''

Trimbur:
*"The dominant representations
of writing typically offered by the process movement-voice, cognition, convention-despite the crucial differences among them, all picture writing as an invisible process, an auditory or mental event that takes place at the point of composing, where meaning get made" (Trimbur, 2004, p. 260).

*The "transparent text"
(p. 261)

*"...individuals do not simply ''acquire'' literacy but actually ''build'' for themselves the tools to produce writing" (p. 262).

*"Typography, on the other hand, calls attention to how the look of the page communicates meaning by treating text as a visual element
that can be combined with images and other nonverbal forms to produce a unit of discourse" (p. 267).

*"The complicated relationship between reading and seeing text and image raises interesting questions for writing studies about how we might think about the page as a unit of discourse-about how, say, the juxtaposition of articles, photographs, and advertisements on a newspaper or magazine page creates larger messages than any single item can convey" (p. 268).

*"Division of labor" ties to AT

Porter & Sullivan:
*"Schuman articulates here the premise of intertextuality, the principle that recognizes
the interconnected, networked characteristic of discourse. Intertextuality notes that any given discourse is influenced by its relationship to other discourses and is composed as of ''traces,'' pieces of other texts that help constitute its meaning in a given situation" (Porter & Sullivan, 2004, p. 291).

*"The object of analysis for those in rhetoric and composition is not only the written text
, but the writer-in-the-act-of-writing, and also the audience. We examine the text, not as an autonomous structure, so much as a stage in an overall process of action involving the writer and the audience, as well as numerous other discourses. Rhetoric complicates discourse study by involving matters related to situation and process-the setting for discourse as well means by which it is produced and received" (p. 292).

*Once again, these are ties to AT possibly social constructivism
to:
From a current-traditionalist perspective, teaching writing within the composition classroom is process driven and concentrates mostly on stylized conventions and correct use of grammar within an academic setting. In many ways, students are fed a pre-constructed identity that defines academic writing from a set of ideological notions of the dominant culture. The shift from viewing writing as an individual act to a social act is a move in composition pedagogy that lends itself to a humanistic or social constructivist theory (Lanham, 1994; Buchanan, 1995; Shauf, 2001). James (1984) definition of a New Rhetorician adds a social-cognitive dimension to teaching writing by allowing for a more student-centered classroom for learning to occur through dialogue and interaction. Linda Flower (1994) views the writing process from a literacy standpoint, where she argues, as an and as a move within a discourse that involves more than viewing writing from a static point in time and sees it as being more interactive and spread out over time (Flower, 1994, p.20). When viewing writing from a literacy standpoint rather than a language and skills acquisition, as Flower suggests, the definition of communication and making meaning within a discourse community involves the social and cognitive construction of knowledge.

How students make meaning within a text usually depends on how they view themselves, and their position
, within certain discourse communities. For instance, if Student A (i.e. a chemistry major) writes about Subject X (i.e. Biology) in a certain way within a certain discourse community that student's writing is molded on what that student knows, or is beginning to become familiar with. Student A has to make meaning that fits that discourse purpose. In doing so, Student A creates an identity using that knowledge and vocabulary. The meaning that Student A makes depends on their involvement, or level of participation, within that community. If Student A's meaning about Subject X is not fully appreciated or understood by other members within that discourse community it might be because Student A is making that meaning from a peripheral place within that community. Shifting from a cognitive paradigm to a more social one involves not only building on the knowledge that students posses, but also allowing them to participate in a way where they feel they are the author of that knowledge. This concept is built on a social constructivist framework where multiple-literacies are allowed to act and interact through various connective networks.

''A misconception about collaboration, group work
, and what is writing''

The connective networks I mention above does not necessarily mean that students simply get into groups, collaborate, and try to answer preconceived teacher-based prompts. A short-coming of this pedagogical approach within the classroom can be seen as interpreting the basic "triangle" model below for what it is (teacher can also be substituted
for reader, student for author, and subject for text, if viewed from a pedagogical perspective):

%center%Text
\
\
\
\
\
%left%Reader %right%Author

The connection between the reader (or teacher, depending on which model you choose to use), the author (or student), and the text (or subject) appears too distinct in their purpose, which, in essence, are dialectal to an extent but not necessarily dialogical because they can only communicate directly back to one another through evocation or invocation (Ede & Lunsford, 1984). What can happen is that teachers concentrate on the content, not necessarily the meaning on why something is done the way it is, and end up placing students into groups answer questions that the teacher already has fixed answers for. Another example of having students engage in peripheral roles involves building assignments and activities around multiple perspectives or cause and effect arguments that complicate the type of writing, and communication, which is expected of them within other discourse communities. Thus the students' audiences are fictionalized (evoked/invoked) and they become tangled in the multitude of words and meanings and arguments that their teacher expects them to put together in order to form their own argument. Even the role of argument is questionable within the composition classroom. Frans H. Van Eemeren and Rob Goortendorst (2004) describe argumentation this way:

Argumentation is not just the expression of an individual assessment, but a contribution to a communication process between persons or groups who exchange ideas with one another in order to resolve a difference of opinion. Some approaches to argumentative discourse and texts abstract from the way in which the communication process is conducted, and certain components of the argumentative discourse or text are just distinguished as, for instance, and premises, irrespective of the communication process they are a part of" (Van Eemeren & Goortendorst, p.55).

Many times students become bogged with the texts and the meaning, or purpose, of the assignment or activity because, like Student A, their role is only peripheral in actually constructing the knowledge they are supposed to use to within that discourse community.
Added line 17:
Added lines 3-15:
Axiom:
*Composition instructors should provide an atmosphere where students are allowed the opportunity to fully explore and develop their identity within a new discourse community.
Assumptions:
*Students are fed a pre-constructed identity of what an academic writer is and what academic writing is.
*By using a medium like myspace.com and/or Facebook within the composition classroom, students are given the opportunity to interpret what an academic writer is or should be within a certain context defined/reinforced by the pedagogy/ perspective.
*By using a medium like myspace.com and/or Facebook, the lines between various styles/conventions of writing become complicated.
*From a pedagogical standpoint:
** (2003) dealing with various forms of texts within a genre (p. 53).
** (2004) are in dealing with the changing of writing and teaching writing within the classroom (p. 71).
** (2003) a pedagogy of visual (p.111).
Hill's assertion: most basic, and perhaps the most misguided, of these assumptions is that we could ever draw a distinct line between the visual and the verbal, or the concentrating on one can or should require the (Hill, 2003, p. 109).
Deleted lines 36-46:
Axiom:
*Composition instructors should provide an atmosphere where students are allowed the opportunity to fully explore and develop their identity within a new discourse community.
Assumptions:
*Students are fed a pre-constructed identity of what an academic writer is and what academic writing is.
*By using a medium like myspace.com and/or Facebook within the composition classroom, students are given the opportunity to interpret what an academic writer is or should be within a certain context defined/reinforced by the pedagogy/ perspective.
*By using a medium like myspace.com and/or Facebook, the lines between various styles/conventions of writing become complicated.
*From a pedagogical standpoint:
** (2003) dealing with various forms of texts within a genre (p. 53).
** (2004) are in dealing with the changing of writing and teaching writing within the classroom (p. 71).
** (2003) a pedagogy of visual (p.111).
Hill's assertion: most basic, and perhaps the most misguided, of these assumptions is that we could ever draw a distinct line between the visual and the verbal, or the concentrating on one can or should require the (Hill, 2003, p. 109).
Changed lines 1-3 from:
Pedagogy, literacy, making meaning, and identity

Social constructivism and activity theory
to:
''Pedagogy, literacy, making meaning, and identity''

''
Social constructivism and activity theory''
Trimbur:
*"The dominant representations of writing typically offered by the process movement-voice, cognition, convention-despite the crucial differences among them, all picture writing as an invisible process, an auditory or mental event that takes place at the point of composing, where meaning get made" (Trimbur, 2004, p. 260).

*The "transparent text" (p. 261)

*"...individuals do not simply ''acquire'' literacy but actually ''build'' for themselves the tools to produce writing" (p. 262).

*"Typography, on the other hand, calls attention to how the look of the page communicates meaning by treating text as a visual element that can be combined with images and other nonverbal forms to produce a unit of discourse" (p. 267).

*"The complicated relationship between reading and seeing text and image raises interesting questions for writing studies about how we might think about the page as a unit of discourse-about how, say, the juxtaposition of articles, photographs, and advertisements on a newspaper or magazine page creates larger messages than any single item can convey" (p. 268).

*"Division of labor" ties to AT

Porter & Sullivan:
*"Schuman articulates here the premise of intertextuality, the principle that recognizes the interconnected, networked characteristic of discourse. Intertextuality notes that any given discourse is influenced by its relationship to other discourses and is composed as of ''traces,'' pieces of other texts that help constitute its meaning in a given situation" (Porter & Sullivan, 2004, p. 291).

*"The object of analysis for those in rhetoric and composition is not only the written text, but the writer-in-the-act-of-writing, and also the audience. We examine the text, not as an autonomous structure, so much as a stage in an overall process of action involving the writer and the audience, as well as numerous other discourses. Rhetoric complicates discourse study by involving matters related to situation and process-the setting for discourse as well means by which it is produced and received" (p. 292).

*Once again, these are ties to AT possibly social constructivism
June 06, 2007, at 02:50 PM CST by 165.95.11.174 -
Changed lines 9-10 from:
*By using a medium like myspace.com within the composition classroom, students are given the opportunity to interpret what an academic writer is or should be within a certain context defined/reinforced by the pedagogy/ perspective.
*By using a medium like myspace.com, the lines between various styles/conventions of writing become complicated.
to:
*By using a medium like myspace.com and/or Facebook within the composition classroom, students are given the opportunity to interpret what an academic writer is or should be within a certain context defined/reinforced by the pedagogy/ perspective.
*By using a medium like myspace.com and/or Facebook, the lines between various styles/conventions of writing become complicated.
Added lines 1-15:
Pedagogy, literacy, making meaning, and identity

Social constructivism and activity theory

Axiom:
*Composition instructors should provide an atmosphere where students are allowed the opportunity to fully explore and develop their identity within a new discourse community.
Assumptions:
*Students are fed a pre-constructed identity of what an academic writer is and what academic writing is.
*By using a medium like myspace.com within the composition classroom, students are given the opportunity to interpret what an academic writer is or should be within a certain context defined/reinforced by the pedagogy/ perspective.
*By using a medium like myspace.com, the lines between various styles/conventions of writing become complicated.
*From a pedagogical standpoint:
** (2003) dealing with various forms of texts within a genre (p. 53).
** (2004) are in dealing with the changing of writing and teaching writing within the classroom (p. 71).
** (2003) a pedagogy of visual (p.111).
Hill's assertion: most basic, and perhaps the most misguided, of these assumptions is that we could ever draw a distinct line between the visual and the verbal, or the concentrating on one can or should require the (Hill, 2003, p. 109).