Provocative, eh? Let’s see what I can do:
It is true that the typical university writing assignment in many discipline still requires no design elements beyond discrete paragraphs and a centered title. However, with the increasing availability of digital imaging technology, this situation is changing, and it will continue to change. And outside of the academy, such non-visual texts are relatively and increasingly rare. Ignoring graphics and visual design elements in writing classes, even in first-year composition is quickly becoming anarchistic (Hill 127).
This idea presented by Hill is probably old hat to the audience that I’m presenting to--so its provocative nature may not be realized, yet. The reason I chose this quote to represent the most provocative quote of our readings is shaped by my experiences in boot camp over the summer. I had entered our summer training with the idea that most of my colleagues would come to an agreement on progressive pedagogical topics such as the integration of technology, digital texts, visual texts, etc. in the classroom; however, I came across several teaching assistants that would disagree directly with Hill’s argument that I presented. In fact, I defended this point of Hill’s exactly in our discussion of digital and visual literacy--I can distinctly remember (and I stand by this argument today) that we are obligated as FYC instructors to recognize the influence digital and visual texts have on our students, but also, by ignoring these texts, we would be doing an injustice to the central principles of composition which includes having our students think critically of the texts that surround them.
Further, the structure of these digital communities that surround our students are grounded in their participation in creating aspects of the digital culture that they function within: social networks such as facebook, twitter, myspace, online blogging, etc. Our students are creating digital texts with visuals that express their personal style, ideas, concepts, and experiences. As Hill describes, “non-visual texts are relatively and increasingly rare” (127). Our students are--and have been--participating in strongly visual ways in these digital communities; our students have--either consciously or unconsciously--ideas about the rhetorical situations that surround these image, but lack the language to describe them. Tapping into our students’ experiences with visual texts will allow them to use these experiences in their daily lives and transfer them to their respective discipline of interest in academia by finding the avenues to describe the visuals of their fields through the language FYC can provide for them.
The other TAs who disagreed with this concept are reinforcing the word-image binary for not only themselves but for our students. From what I’ve seen from the other blog posts, breaking the word-image binary is something that is in common agreement. FYC has the potential to get students to critically think about their texts on several dimensions--not just one. By breaking the word-image binary, our students can begin to think about how their texts can function in their rhetorical situation in all modes.
Wudup dawg,
ReplyDeleteI was reading some articles on my laptop last night and had a sudden realization that I often feel more comfortable with digital texts than I do with printed texts. I never read newspapers, but I visit news sites every day. Additionally, since coming to graduate school, my course readings have been consumed more frequently (probably 90% of the time) on a screen, with a PDF and a comment button than with a page and pen.
I am totally behind your commitment to digital literacy. If we, who love books and have spent our lives with them, are migrating to digital texts, how much more will our students have made this transition? In fact, I'd wager that over the next few years we will encounter students for whom digital texts represent their first medium and for whom the printed book is a foreign, impractical anachronism.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJoe,
ReplyDeleteI was also surprised by the apprehension that some fellow students had about incorporating digital technologies into their classes. I think the apprehension comes from their own lack of knowledge about how to work with images and technology. Of course, no one is asked to be a computer genius or visual artist when it comes to being a composition TA; however, I think that instead of negating something, people could show a willingness to learn a new way of composing. We are not asked to be experts, just knowledgeable and open to new experiences. There's no use in fighting the internet and digital technologies because they're not going away.
I agree with you, Joe, but let's be sure that we do not conflate the visual with the electronic. Although students are absolutely immersed in electronic (and therefore visual) environments, not all visuals they use or encounter will be electronic. Might visual rhetoric still have value if we study, say, book design or posters, vs electronic media?
ReplyDeleteI remember having a similar bootcamp experience. We were waiting for class to start, and in a nearby classroom the instructor was airing a film (we could hear it in the hall). The other TA claimed the movie was a complete waste of class time. As I said then and I'll say now, it's all in how you use it. Visuals can be great for analysis and bring something fresh and interesting to the classroom..... assuming you don't just go "visuals..... amirite?" and call it a day. I think there's little limitation to what we can use in the classroom.... assuming there's a pedagogical purpose behind it. I can stare at images with students all semester. We won't necessarily become more rhetorically savvy. Point being, I'm with you all the way, but my concern is whether it's (for want of a better phrase) "worth it" for some instructors to incorporate the visual. Those who cling to an image/word binary... will they integrate these things in pedagogically valid ways? I know they CAN do that... but WILL they? I do wish that these sorts of things weren't opposed instantly by the, shall I call them the "binary crowd," but it may well be worse to force (not that you're suggesting we "force") them to start working with images. Perhaps they should or shouldn't, but it's all in how it's handled. If it's pedagogically sound? Go for it. If it's visual for visual's sake, it may well be more harmful than helpful. In the case of some bootcamp TA's, I definitely wondered if they would or could ever see the value in incorporating visual/digital texts.
ReplyDelete