|
Annotated Bibliography - AL841 Annotated Bibliography - AL860
Back to Homepage
|
Ten years ago, I didn't know the difference between a browser and an operating system, I had never been online, and I didn't know what a genre was except for fiction, drama, and poetry. My undergraduate degree cleared a lot of that up for me, but when I pursued my master's degree, I focused on the "fourth genre" of creative nonfiction; other kinds of writing ended up taking a backseat. One thing I can confidently say now, though, is that I feel confident writing and teaching a variety of genres in a variety of media. This does not mean that I am an expert in each and every genre, nor does it mean that I have ever even written in every genre. What it does mean, however, is that my concentration at MSU has given me the tools I need to approach the teaching and writing of a wide variety of genres and media, even those I have not before encountered. I specifically chose digital and professional writing because I felt it was a weakness, the one area that, were I asked to teach a writing course somewhere, I would feel uncomfortable teaching. I had had little exposure to business, professional, and technical writing, and while I had become pretty proficient at digital writing, there was so much I knew I did not yet know. I was familiar with web design, but the critical and analytical part of digital rhetoric was foreign to me. Yet I knew how important it was to teach digital literacies in the writing classroom, and I wanted to strengthen this weakness of mine. While the concentration only consisted of three courses, I feel confident that these three courses taught me what I needed to know to make myself marketable as someone who can teach any writing course--which was my goal. The first of these was AL841, which I took in the spring of 2007. When the course began, I felt very intimidated just listening to some of the conversations those around me were having, as many of them were at the end of their coursework and at the end of their concentration. I was just beginning, and knew I had a lot to learn. The course was flexible and allowed us to focus on whatever would be most useful for us, so I chose to focus on the intersection of professional writing and pedagogy. My first project was a comprehensive annotated bibliography that asked (and answered) the question, "Who is teaching technical writing?" I used the term "technical writing" to include technical, professional, and business writing as an inclusive term, not because these three are all the same but because they all were treated the same within the academy--as "vocational writing." The annotated bibliography begins in the 1950's when the demand for more technical and professional writing courses began and continues through the mid-90's. This annotated bibliography taught me many things: for one, I researched in a new area, which was a challenge, and learned new researching techniques that have helped me throughout the rest of my coursework. Also I learned how to write an exemplary annotated bibliography, one that has sections, tells a story, answers a question--one that will serve me well as I head toward my concentration exams and my dissertation. And, obviously, I learned a lot about the field as each of these articles spoke to one another and showed the evolution of one particular aspect of the field, the attitudes toward it, and how it has become what it is now. This led me to my "SOTA" project: we had to do a project on the "State of the Art of..." a topic we chose within the field of professional writing. I chose to do "Theoretical Frameworks for the Teaching of Technical Writing: The State of the Art." When I began my research, I intended to find out how those in composition talked about their theories for teaching technical and professional writing. To my surprise, I found none. Not one. So instead I decided to discover how those in the technical writing field theorize their pedagogies and how this can, in turn, inform those who are not trained in teaching technical writing (i.e. compositionists and literature teachers). I found a lot of information, and narrowed the theories down to the six most common, including my favorites: genre and activity theory, ecocomposition theory, and layered literacy theory. By the time I completed this course, I felt confident that I could teach a technical, professional, or business writing course, that I could avoid the copy-the-memo approach so many in the field abhor, and could design my course on theoretically sound ideas. The next course I took was AL 860: Visual Rhetoric for Professional Writing. We were faced with several "modules" over the seven week course, an annotated bibliography, and a semester project. The modules gave us practice designing several projects and documents, which in itself was quite educational. It gave me confidence that I could tackle the aesthetics of design, but at the same time taught several important elements of digital rhetoric as well. My annotated bibliography was designed with those in mind who teach composition and would like to include visual rhetoric in their courses. My findings led me to divide the information in the bibliography into three sections: articles that explain the importance of including visual rhetoric in writing pedagogy; online syllabi for visual rhetoric courses being taught at various universities in the U.S., and an appendix of other readings connected to the subject of visual rhetoric. This bibliography was an excellent way for me to theorize the importance of visual rhetoric, while at the same time giving me ideas about the course I was preparing for my major project. This project took place over two semesters. The project was to design a digital rhetoric course from scratch. I began by setting the theoretical foundations and basic framework for the course, during AL 860, where I created the syllabus and first unit for the course I would be teaching in January. Many important pieces fell into place that allowed me to teach this course, but the most important was the upcoming writing minor that I convinced our department at Alma College that we needed. One of the core courses I convinced them was imperative for the writing minor was a digital rhetoric course, so this was to be the trial period--a lot was riding on it. The syllabus, first unit, and course outline I worked on over the summer was the beginning, knowing I was taking AL 881 in the fall, where I began my major project for that right away--the completion of this course. I completed the research component, the next two units, the wiki, and all the other little things like rubrics and handouts during AL 860 so that I was completely ready to teach my new course in January. As a result of this excellent preparation and Danielle's guidance, I taught a very successful course. Because it was so successful, the English department asked me to design a writing minor based on what I had learned at MSU, theorize and explain my choices for the minor I designed, and present it to the department. They unanimously accepted my proposal and the writing minor will begin in 2009 (lots of paperwork). During AL 881, we also completed several "modules" based on a "teachnology" statement we composed. This statement was remediated over and over, an excellent way to help us understand various digital rhetorical components in a hands-on way. One of my remediation projects, my website, exemplifies this remediation project. Additionally, one of the great things about this website is that it will serve me well in the future as a source for discussing and explaining the importance of technology in composition. Over the course of the past year, I have gone from feeling that digital rhetorics was a weakness to feeling confident enough to teach it and then sell it to an English department as a core course for their new writing minor. Of course, I don't know everything there is to know about the subject, as really no one can, but thanks to my concentration coursework at MSU, my weakness is now a strength. |