The University of Florida
offers an alternative to the first-year Writing About Literature course
called Writing Through
Media (ENG 1131), which can be taught in either a traditional classroom
or an electronic environment. Its requirements are as follows: to
introduce students to the transition underway between literacy and
post-literacy in contemporary culture, to the basic principles of
semiotics, and to the basic modes of organizing information that underlie
and make coherent the apparent diversity of popular media narrative
(enigma), argument (enthymeme), and image (trope).
I have now taught the Writing Through Media course for four semesters,
teaching nearly the same course content each time, which has allowed
me to refine my approach to using hypertext. Having been oriented
a few years ago to the transition underway from print to online writing,
I was generally enthusiastic about teaching hypertext. I initially
approached the course through Greg Ulmer's framework called the mystory,
which he describes
as a new genre of academic research. The mystory, a neologism, reflects
the development of any individual's education. In Text Book,
he writes: "[M]ystory is to the individual learning experience
what history is to the nation" (p. 277). Mystorical writing is
the act of researching and composing by way of one's personal style.
A number of Ulmer's electronic classes have been guided by such writing.
For examples, visit http://www.nwe.ufl.edu/~gulmer/course97/rushmore.html.
I assumed that since I myself
had created a number of mystorical projects in the past, I would not
encounter any difficulty in teaching the approach. The first time
I taught hypertext, however, I was quietly dissatisfied with the work
I received, and I assumed full responsibility for any of those shortcomings.
Most of the projects reflected the sentiment I have been reading about
in some of the more recent posts on the Techrhet listserv: Students
less preoccupied with content, and more concerned with flashy design.
I realized a couple of other things that semester: 1) that my math
instructor in community college has been correct after all these years
in saying that simply knowing how to complete a task does not necessarily
translating into knowing how to teach it; this point is surely common
sense for most people, but it is a point of which we as educators
need to be reminded, as the National Education Association and the
Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education
both mindfully do. In the April 2002 issue of "Thriving in Academe"
in the Advocate, Tim Riordan, Lucy Cromwell, and Sheryl Slocum
who teach at Alverno College in Wisconsin offer the following helpful
advice:
We need to select teaching
strategies carefully, always keeping in mind what we want students
to know and be able to do. And we need to design classroom assignments
that in themselves are occasions for learning and that provide opportunities
for students to practice important skills of self-assessment. Only
then will students learn to take responsibility for their own learning
both in their curricula and in their lives following graduation.
(online)
This advice leads me to my
second point: that I had not asked of my students what I truly expected.
I quote at length another passage from the Advocate:
We need to be as clear
as we can about our expectations for students at various points
in the curriculum and communicate these expectations clearly to
ourselves and our students. Without this shared understanding, it
is very difficult, if not impossible, to take collective responsibility
for our students' learning. (Online)
What seemed to be lacking
in my pedagogy was nothing short of telos, an end goal, a sense
of purpose. The first semester I taught in the NWE, I intentionally
assigned projects that had seemingly little in common with one another,
articulated few expectations, and purposely introduced material in
confusing ways, hoping that students might be encouraged to develop
their own ideas about how to complete the assignments. And while my
methodology may have made sense to the students at the end of the
semester--I asked students at the beginning of the semester to watch
and discuss a clip from the film Philadelphia. At the end of
the semester, I showed them the same clip and asked them how the clip
relates to the course, to which they all answered illustriously--they
seemed desperate and hopeless throughout. The teacher evaluations
I received for that semester were eye-opening and disheartening, but
honest and accurate. Students expressed largely a need for more direction.
One thing I realized after reading the evaluations was that I always
need to provide students with more information, even if I am attempting
to try a new style of writing. I decided that I needed to foreground
at the outset of the following semester some differences between print
and online writing, and language in general. If I expected students
to write mystorically, in favor of their own personal styles, then
I needed to demonstrate why and how the formal essay may differ from
a personal style. The second thing I decided to do was create a sense
of purpose when designing the projects. This new, goal-oriented approach
prompted me to declare in subsequent semesters that "everything
I teach is interconnected," that "the class deals specifically
with interconnectivity."