Faculty workshop


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Faculty workshop

  1. 1. Nathan Serfling<br />English 895: Teaching Writing from a Distance<br />6/23/10<br />Faculty Workshop: Teaching Writing Online<br />
  2. 2. The Workshop<br />Audience: faculty new to online writing instruction<br />Purpose/Goals<br /> Ease transition to teaching writing online<br />Introduce some recent pedagogies<br />Suggest some best practices<br />Acquaint with technologies beneficial for writing instruction<br />Structure<br />Five days in the summer<br />Computer lab for hands-on work<br />Open discussion with practical/technical sessions<br />
  3. 3. Workshop’s Agenda<br />Monday<br />Establishing goals and concerns<br />Practices<br />Overview of Course Management System (CMS)<br />Experimenting with CMS<br />Tuesday<br />Content and delivery<br />Course goals/objectives, syllabus<br />Organizing the course<br />Managing and delivering content<br />
  4. 4. Workshop Agenda (cont.)<br />Wednesday<br />Student engagement<br />Synchronous and asynchronous methods<br />Chat<br />Discussion<br />Thursday<br />Collaboration in the writing class<br />Peer review<br />Group work<br />Hands-on work with new tools<br />
  5. 5. Workshop Agenda (cont.)<br />Friday<br />Assessment and grading<br />Tools for assessment and grading<br />Plagiarism and intellectual property rights<br />Miscellaneous matters: student behavior, more advanced technologies, final questions<br />
  6. 6. Need for the Workshop<br />My experiences<br />Resistanceto and ignorance of technologies<br />Labor issues<br />Resulting poor practices<br />
  7. 7. Addressing the Need: Pedagogy<br />Collaboration<br />Community<br />Social Constructivism<br />
  8. 8. Addressing the Need: Best Practices<br />Promoting engagement<br />Applying two specific practices: process scripts and scaffolding<br />Selecting and using technology<br />
  9. 9. Conclusion<br />Effects of new technologies on practices<br />Difficulties of late adoption or lack of knowledge<br />Need for faculty development<br />Maintain critical approaches, emphasis on pedagogy<br />
  10. 10. Works Cited<br />Anson, Chris. “Distance Voices: Teaching and Writing in a Culture of Technology.” College English 61.3 (1999): 261-80. Print.<br />Berlin, James.Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures: Refiguring College English Studies. 1996. West Lafeyette, IN: Parlor, 2003. Print.<br />Brabazon, Tara. Digital Hemlock: Internet Education and the Poisoning of Teaching. Sydney: U of New South Wales P, 2002. Print. <br />Bruffee, Kenneth. “Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversation of Mankind.’” College English 46.7 (1984): 635-52. JSTOR. Web. 3 June 2010.<br />Cook, Kelli Cargile. “An Argument for Pedagogy-Driven Online Education.” Cook and Grant-Davie 49-66. Print.<br />Cook, Kelli Cargile and Keith Grant-Davie, eds. Online Education: Global Questions, Local Answers. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing, 2004.<br />DePew, Kevin Eric, T.A. Fishman, Julia E. Romberger, and Bridget Fahey Ruetenik. “Design Efficiencies: The Parallel Narratives of Distance Education and Composition Studies.” Computers and Composition 23 (2006): 49-67. Print.<br />
  11. 11. Works Cited (cont.)<br />DeVoss, Danielle, Dawn Hayden, Cynthia L. Selfe, and Richard J. Selfe. “Distance Education: Political and Professional Agency for Adjunct and Part-Time Faculty, and GTAs.” Moving a Mountain: Transforming the Role of Contingent Faculty in Composition Studies and Higher Education. Ed. Eileen Schell and Patricia Lambert Stock. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2001. Print.<br />Garrison, D. Randy and Norman D. Vaughan. Blended Learning in Higher Education: Frameworks, Principles, and Guidelines. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass, 2008. Print.<br />Grady, Helen M. and Marjorie T. Davis. “Teaching Well Online with Instructional and Procedural Scaffolding.” Cook and Grant-Davie 101-22. Print.<br />Harris, Joseph. “The Idea of Community in the Study of Writing.” On Writing Research: The Braddock Essays, 1975-1998. Ed. Lisa Ede. Boston: Bedford, 1999. 260-71. Print.<br />Hawisher, Gail and Cynthia Selfe. “The Rhetoric of Technology and the Electronic Writing Class.” CCC 42.1 (1991): 55-65. Print.<br />Janangelo, Joseph. “Technopower and Technoppression: Some Abuses of Power and Control in Computer-Assisted Writing Environments.” Computers and Composition 9.1 (1991): 47-64. Print.<br />
  12. 12. Works Cited (cont.)<br />Knievel, Michael. “(Re)defining the Humanistic: Making Space for Technology in Twenty-First Century English Studies.” Transforming English Studies: New Voices in an Emerging Genre. Ed. Lori Ostergaard, Jeff Ludwig, and Jim Nugent. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor, 2009. 229-48. Print.<br />Neff, Joyce and Carl Whithaus. Writing across Distances and Disciplines: Research and Pedagogy in Distributed Learning. New York: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, 2008. Print.<br />Peterson, Patricia Webb. “The Debate about Online Learning: Key Issues for Writing Teachers.” Computers and Composition 18 (2001): 359-70. Print.<br />Selfe, Cynthia L. and Richard J. Selfe. “The Intellectual Work of Computers and Composition Studies.” Rhetoric and Composition as Intellectual Work. Ed. Gary A. Olson. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP, 2002. 203-20. Print.<br />Warnock, Scott. Teaching Writing Online: How and Why. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2009. Print.<br />