McGrath, Laura, ed. Collaborative Approaches to the Digital in English Studies. Logan, UT: Computers and Composition Digital P/Utah State UP, 2011. Web. http://ccdigitalpress.org/ebooks-and-projects/cad

Part 2

Matt Barton and Kevin Moberly's "Across the disciplines: Establishing a new media program,” is in part, a cautionary tale recounting the authors’ attempt to establish an interdisciplinary, new media program at St. Could State University. But at its essence, Barton and Moberly’s essay offers an insightful and inspiring stance for other teacher-scholars of new media: By engaging Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusins' theory of remediation, Barton and Moberly offer new media scholars frustrated by the lack of university support for collaborative, interdisciplinary endeavors, an outlook to their work and teaching that inherently promotes collaboration within established, university structures. The authors advocate for further collaborative pursuits by new media scholars by stating: "Scholars must work together to discuss and practice new media in ways that foreground and thereby deconstruct the disciplinary struggles that appear natural, inevitable, and incontrovertible" (180). Rather than fighting against traditions and structures, scholars must reorient their pursuits in collaborative and inventive ways—something all of the authors in this section champion.

Magnus Gustafsson, Donna Reiss, Art Young, and Linda Bradley’s essay "From local seminars to international teaching and learning exchanges: The cross-cultural collaborations project” is the first of four essays in the section offering pedagogical applications for digital approaches to English education. Gustafsson et al., present a comprehensive step-by-step guide for establishing an international, collaborative writing curriculum. The authors begin by sharing their processes establishing and refining a five-year, international collaborative curricula, for which their “eight shared learning outcomes” (190-5) served as foundation. They describe their curricula as a "a poetry-focused electronic discussion activity [which] offers a representative example of an international teaching partnership and an evolving cross-cultural, collaborative, and multimodal learning environment" (182). However, the authors are quick to note that establishing and maintaining a similar pedagogical partnership could occur beyond student analysis of poetry. It is the authors’ intention that readers pull from their extensive resources (“shared learning outcomes” (190-5), transparency in reporting all stages of their teaching and research processes is complimented by the inclusion of several links, figures, assignment prompts, and 2 videos which showcase student perspectives about the course and particular assignments), and insights in order to establish similar curricula. For as the authors see it, both teachers and students benefit from such collaborative learning experiences.

In "The polyphonic classroom: A collaborative pedagogical approach to information literacy and digital composition," Caroline Cason Barratt, Jill M. Parrott, and Erin Presley provide the concept and model for a collaborative, multimodal pedagogy "designed to introduce students to the technology resources available to them, to improve their research and information literacy skills, to teach them how to present research findings [multimodality], and to enhance specific technical competencies" (221). Noteworthy to this essay is the video overview of their "Polyphonic Classroom." In a sense, the video serves as the chapter's abstract. As both the video and essay itself explain, Barratt et al.’s curriculum promotes collaboration with university librarians and the university learning center. Their approach is a true promotion of collaborative partnerships discussed and endorsed by this collection, in that this, like all collaborative endeavors, utilize and share the expertise and authority of all members. The authors thoroughly respond to the possibilities and limitations of collaborative partnerships, even while persuasively selling their curricula. By sharing their "assignment sequence" (229-23) as well as their preliminary design plans (225-229), this chapter allows others to adapt and implement similar curricula. In their conclusion, the authors note a key point: the important difference between collaboration and cooperation. According to Barratt et al., "Cooperation requires less time and effort,” while collaboration fosters greater success, “with success defined as student attention to and investment in the assignment—when the instructors are aligned as partners and focused on the same goals" (240). Their distinction furthers the purpose and scope of the collection, as both previous and proceeding essays demonstrate.

Chapter 9 is the only essay in the collection that features a response. The chapter begins with an essay co-authored by graduate students Monica E. Bulger, Jessica C. Murphy, Jeff Scheible, and Elizabeth Lagresa, and is followed by the response of their instructor, Alan Liu, whose course and assignment inspired their essay, "Interdisciplinary knowledge work: Digital textual analysis tools and their collaboration affordances.” As the students explain, Liu's assignment asked for the use and analysis of (free) digital textual analysis tools on materials of their choosing. Bulger et al., admit that a "curiosity" for "experimentation" tremendously enriched their learning processes. The students explain that Liu’s assignment advised "using tools against their intended purpose [by] repurposing tools," which resulted in positive yet unforeseen possibilities for their work (256). What appear as most crucial to their collaborations are their four strategies for "Productive Collaboration”: “1. respect for one another's work, 2. commitment to process, 3. sense of play, and 4. flexible expectations" (257-9). Telling from the students' collective experiences and processes, were the ways in which each member was transformed by their collaborative research experience, and their desire for others to engage in similar pursuits.

Instructor, Alan Liu's response "'So what?' New tools and new humanities paradigms" is as much an appraisal of his students’ insights and implications, as well as for experimentation with digital technologies in general. In the rationale for his assignment, Liu states something worth repeating for others interested in collaborative new media teaching and research: According to Liu, it is more important to "tool down" technologies, in order to make contributive, collaborative discoveries. By endorsing digital tools as "toys" Liu believes students are more willing to experiment, a process, which subsequently fosters transformative learning experiences. Conclusion