abstract

background

theory

praxis

models

course

software instruction
default to linear
theory gap
design

references

In my three semesters teaching the theory and practice of academic hypertext I saw my share of gizmos (from horrid clip art, to seemingly irrelevant Flash movies and really bad color palettes). I have included superfluous visual elements in my own designs. For my Web Authoring class I created Flash movie navigation buttons that had nothing to do with the content of the course, aside from the fact that they worked as links to my syllabus, assignments, etc.

The value of this kind of work, as I see it, lies less in its rhetorical role than in its technical one. Once equipped with the technical skills, hypertext authors can shift their attention toward effective (and more rhetorically appropriate) applications of the techniques. When students develop competence with the software in the context of a composition classroom concerned with the application and testing of hypertext theory, the instructor can help students determine how to deploy technical inventions for rhetorical purposes.

In addition to being misplaced, Shauf's (2001) claim that "we must restrict students to a limited technical palette to focus their attention on the idea that rhetoric, not JavaScript, is the core challenge in the electronic classroom" seems unlikely to encourage the kind of academic hypertexts that employ design (p. 37). In my Spring 2003 course on hypertext theory and practice, neither Karin nor Christine would have produced the kind of academic hypertexts they did without pushing their knowledge of software and web effects.

software instruction | back to basics?