It was about a year ago that I wrote a piece for English Journal on teaching “blogging” vs. “writing with blogs” that was pretty much a re-hash of some blog posts that I thought were saying something. The trouble is, I wasn’t sure what they were saying. I’ve been fumbling at this one for a while.
I’ve always found something particularly special about writing online, or at least I’ve learned that there’re more options, more possibilities, and plenty of challenges that make writing online much more complicated than cutting and pasting a Word file into a text box and hitting “submit.”
But most folks that I see beginning to use digital writing spaces aren’t treating them any differently. And I can’t quite figure out why. I also can’t quite figure out how to articulate the differences, even though I think I get some, if not several, of them. And if I can’t articulate them, perhaps I can’t teach them. (Not sure about that, actually - but work with me.)
I think one good way to articulate some of the differences is to tell you a story. Here goes.
Tonight, I’m sitting in a local cafe, enjoying a cup of wicked sweet coffee and some tunes. As I wrote that last sentence, and added the links in, I wondered how you would read it. Are you someone who clicks on any link you see in a blog post? Or are you more like me? I use a browser that shows me the URL of the link I’m pointing to, saving me the trouble of traveling here if, after reading the URL, I see that I don’t need to follow the link, perhaps because I already know the site, or I don’t want to go to the site, because I’m worried about pop-ups, or a virus, or something that I don’t actually want to see. I love that browser, except when it leaks memory.
I could continue, but I think (hope) I’m making my point. I could have written that paragraph without the links - but I would’ve need an awful lot more details to tell you as much as I did with the links. And you each will have worked your way through that paragraph differently. Some of you read and clicked and fiddled. Others of you read differently. (Oh - and here’s a minor nit - but how many of you, in that last sentence, read, ahem, “read” in the past tense? Present tense? Language is hard. But anyway.)
I don’t know what my students do/did when they see blocks of text with links. And I’m 98 percent sure that there wasn’t another teacher in my school who was thinking about how to explain that to students, much less about how they read that text themselves.
Digital texts have the potential to make a big, juicy mess of a linear experience. Or to turn a so-so piece of writing into a masterful collection of references, linktributions, and pointers to other good stuff. My hunch, a rough one, but one I’ve held for a while, is that reading and writing that way makes you (ultimately) a better reader and writer. I just don’t really think I know how to teach that way yet, or at least, I don’t know how to teach other people to think about teaching that way.
Will Richardson asked me recently (well, it was two weeks ago - but that counts as recent if you forgive me the week I spent sick. And I do.) about connective writing, and what a course on it might look like. I blame him for the frustrated typing that I’m up to right now. And the posts that I suspect are forthcoming. (And I’m thankful, too. I needed a push.)
What would such a course look like? What would it cover? How would it differ from a “regular” (I know - bogus term.) 9th or 10th grade high school writing course? How would it be the same? (Why wait until high school? I’ve been thinking through blogs as science or inquiry notebooks at the elementary school level.) What happens when we add video(s)? Pictures? Embedded widgets? I’ve got to believe that some analysis of what links do and how they do it would be a necessary piece of any such course. So, too, would be copious quoting and linking to others, building a network of classroom texts that would be added to the greater networks of the world.
I’d kill to teach that class.
Perhaps I’ve stumbled across another thesis idea. Again. Nuts.
_______
Postscript - I had thought that perhaps I’d dig into the research on hypertextual writing a bit before I started down this post. I know these ideas aren’t new. But I couldn’t help myself. I made it four pages into this fascinating article before I started writing. Worth a read, I think.
This week, I did a workshop for
classroom teachers on using blogging in the classroom as one UDL
approach for ALL learners. There were questions about the quality of
posted student writing. So, here are my questions to you. Do you
approve and/or edit every student post? How much editing do you do? How
time consuming is the process? (I notice that you were working at it on
a Friday evening!) Do you have any related tips for teachers who are
holding back out of concerns in this area?
Since I’m not sure about the statute of limitations on blog responses, I’m going to answer now, as I was asked at the end of the post.
I’ve run blogs where I approve everything and others where my students had all the control of what got published and when. I always approved material for our student newspaper (now defunct, sigh), in part because I wanted an opportunity to do revision and editing with each student, and in part because I thought the professional nature of the newspaper made sense for such controls. When I taughtspeech via blogs, I was willing to let my students decide what they published and when. We discussed appropriate behavior as well as that if they weren’t sure about whether or not to publish , they could certainly seek the advice of their fellow students or their teacher. Since their blogs were more for reporting research than they were for formal presentation, I tended to cut the students some leeway when it came to the "rules." If it was readable, and approaching formal English (or, if you prefer, "acceptable public voice,"), then I let it go. In two years of blogging with students, I asked one student to change a piece, once, and even he agreed, after re-reading, that he shouldn’t have hit "publish" in the first place - but that he was frustrated when he made the post. The time involved with editing is much the same as with not editing. I think it’s irresponsible for a teacher to require writing and then to not read that writing. (I don’t mean read every word; teachers, though, should at least skim every post a student makes, for a number of reasons.) So whether or not a teacher is editing prior to publication, or is reading after publication, the time factor is still there. I would argue for making the time spent editing a student’s work with a student a learning experience, akin to a writing conference. The trick, when editing, is to help the writer to become a better writer - and not to mask their student voice with your own teacher voice. I struggle with that one every time I work with a student in a conference. I don’t think we should edit every word or sentence for grammar and proper punctuation - but we should attend to egregious errors. Your own judgment will help you to determine what "egregious" means for your students. I hope this is helpful, even if it’s a bit late. You asked a great set of questions, Paul. Thanks, Brian, for allowing me to take a crack at them.
I tweeted this. Then Dean posted it. And he’s right to do so - I’m forgetting to blog in the wake of Twitter. And that’s a bad thing - worthy of a podcast in the near future. Will’s having the same trouble, it seems, as are others in my network(s). Things are getting ever-more complicated. And that’s a good thing. Anyway - I think this video is of interest to many - both because of the way it was made - which I like very much - as well as the accompanying post on the statistics behind its creation. What a great model for transparency in creation - as well as a good piece for conversation. Enjoy.
Lots of good stuff has either slid through the podcatcher or across the TV screen lately. Thought you’d be interested in these two.
Frontline is looking very seriously at the future of news as well as what it means to keep secrets in a four part series called NewsWar. A teacher’s guide is in the works and you can already view some of the show online. (Frontline also keeps a collection of episodes online for viewing. I love PBS. And WGBH.) Open Source the radio show recently did an hour on the One Laptop per Child program. I’m wondering how to get one of those machines in hand so that I can fiddle a little bit — but I’m guessing that won’t happen anytime soon. One concern I have about the program is the notion that the computers are a magical solution. I hope no one expects that simply distributing laptops will create a better educated world.
The upshot of my correspondence with a very pleasant Ms. Radcliffe today (We’ve exchanged six messages so far, three each way. She asked me not to share hers, so I won’t share the messages, but I will share the outcome) is that no correction will be issued as no error has occurred. I disagree with that assessment. I have inquired of her as to what my next step should be. UPDATE: As I was writing this post, this update appeared on their blog. I suppose that’s a step. I’m about ready to move on, though. I don’t really think this is a battle worth fighting. The larger issue of anonymity is one worth revisiting from time to time. I understand teachers work in places where their "free speech" will get them fired. I also understand that, sometimes, "free speech" isn’t all that free. Yes, teachers should stand up to unsafe or illegal working conditions or student situations, and there is a time and a place for doing so anonymously. But those times and places should be few and far between. Plenty of anonymous teacher blogging that I’ve seen is responsible, but I fear that being anonymous allows for the times when the anonymous teacher wants to call someone an idiot, or a headcase, or other another defamatory, inflammatory term. There’s no responsibility to be fair or accurate in those instances. That’s not okay. Not in public, at least, and not in a professional capacity. We’ve got enough problems to work through in our schools without a lack of civility among the supposed "grown-ups."
I was asked by a PR firm working for CNN to remind y’all that CNN’s website will feature the coverage from 9/11/2001 tomorrow:
Dear Mr. Hunt,
Tomorrow is going to be a rough day — the fifth anniversary
of the attacks of September 11, 2001. As an education writer and observer, you know the value of a “teachable
moment” — and that it must be used properly. Tributes and recollections will appear everywhere, filtered through the
eyes of analysts, journalists, bloggers, politicians and every other American
with access to a podium – in print, on a street corner, on the air or
online. But five years can muddy
recollections – and for many students, five years ago is an eternity.
There is a great resource available for free that can
help. CNN Pipeline – CNN.com’s premium
video news service — will replay, without charge, CNN’s coverage from that day
precisely as happened five years ago, beginning at 8:30 a.m. (ET), minutes
before the first news reports of a plane hitting the World Trade Center in New
York City.
CNN Pipeline is comprised of four separate feeds. Through them the rebroadcast will supplement
its coverage with live reports from memorial services in New York City,
Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania.
One more thing: To be sensitive to those online users who do
not wish to see the replay, CNN Pipeline requires those who want to see the
footage to click on Pipe 4 to launch the program.
The people who frequent Bud the Teacher care about
education and are tech-savvy and culturally aware. They’ll appreciate knowing that this opportunity exists. On behalf of CNN, we hope you’ll tell them.
I’m getting more and more of these press release-type e-mails, although I don’t usually respond to them. (Maybe that’s a session for a future conference — Blogger as PR Target: Responding to the Corporate Press Machine.) This one, though, is likely worth passing on. I was glued to CNN for a few weeks during/after 9/11. It was a pretty scary time. And, yes, I know that’s a pretty United Statesian-centric worldview. But it was. Scary.
I probably won’t be using this tool in my classroom — I wasn’t planning a very long remembrance. Our school-wide daily writing prompt tomorrow is "Remember." It’s open ended because I know that some students won’t want to think about 9/11 — and I’m not sure it’s my place to force them to. Then again, it might be, but that’s a post for another day.
I will check in with the coverage with my journalism students — but that’s all. I’m not sure that I like the idea that this footage is being reused, in part, as a promotional tool for a new web-based news service. I do, agree, though, that seeing the original footage has some educational value.
Google has now put together a News Search specifically for archived news from the last 200 years. According to TechCrunch (and my quick scan) the information available is spotty, but I was blown away by a few quick searches. I imagine this is a resource worth exploring further. Wow.
Here’s the next installment of OldeSchoolNews.com’s Awareness Films. The film is about the Internet. Both the student and I agree that this isn’t as solid as the first piece — but we’ve both learned a lot along the way. Hopefully, we’ll see more Awareness Films over the summer. Future topics are slated to include Internet safety and recycling.
I am very pleased to present to you the first in a series of short, educational "filmstrips" produced by the staff of OldeSchoolNews.com. We’re calling them "Awareness Films." The first, produced by Zach, is called "Infection & You." Enjoy.
Our first podcast is up over at OldeSchoolNews. Melissa, our first student podcaster, did a great job of reading her profile of our school’s counselor. She was very nervous, but ultimately very proud of what she accomplished. More to come, I hope, as students begin to get their current round of writing finished. The comment to the story is just why we’re publishing student work.
