As we know, though, practice often lags behind theory by a matter of years. Hyland mentions several technology uses that still appear familiar. One strategy is to use closed internet chatrooms to peer-edit writing and explore writing topics. I know that these chatrooms are being used in L1 high school classrooms to explore subject matter, and I think this strategy could aid L2 learners in the same way. We've discussed how L2 learners often have a difficult time with writing prompts/topics that are unfamiliar to them. Closed internet chatrooms to discuss a variety of topics, with the students pooling their knowledge and discussing with each other before they write, may be helpful.
Hyland discusses synchronous and asynchronous writing environments. I found his ideas intriguing on both, but I felt uneasy reading about real-time writing environments. Hyland asserts that "students appear to value peer support while actually composing, rather than simply receiving comments on written products" (F. Hyland, 2000). I'd like to take time (sometime...) to read this particular article. Just within my L1, I myself would feel uncomfortable composing on-the-spot with my peers reading my work in real time -- as I write. Writing is a very personal act, in my opinion, even though it is social. To me, it is this merge of private-public that I feel could make synchronous environments uncomfortable for some people. Often, we write in private and choose how and what to share to the public. I think such peer-review environments would succeed best with students who are very comfortable writing in their L2 and also comfortable with the critique of their peers. Hyland does not include this potential disadvantage in his list on page 154, Table 6.2, and I believe this is a major oversight.
Chapter 3 in Cross-Language Relations in Composition was exceptionally interesting. I've already been exposed to work by Cynthia Selfe in Dr. Ball's Multimodal Composition course (as well as work by her husband Richard). While this chapter did not discuss up-to-date technological innovations, what we do realize here is the interdependence of the English language and the culture of technology. The two scholars Hawisher and Selfe write about have digital literacies that were and are strongly influenced by their English literacy backgrounds while their English literacies were heavily shaped by their technology literacy backgrounds.
My take-away from this chapter is that the cyberspace world is constantly in flux with emerging and growing languages as well as disappearing languages, while it is influenced constantly by technological innovations, cultural values, national policy, the economy, and education. Cyberspace is never static and, surprisingly, it appears that is is also becoming less "predominantly U.S. utilized".
The thread of guanxi ran through this chapter. At first, I was a bit unsure of a specific definition for this word. However, the authors succeeded in defining the term through illustrations of how the scholars networked and connected with others through their use of technology. This networking not only supports advancement in education and career development, it also creates space for different identities. Hawisher and Selfe state, "...young professionals like Lu are inventing their own identities thorugh their interactions with others on-line, thus making of themselves, as Sherry Turkle observes, 'multiple, distributed' identities (Turkle qtd. in Hawisher and Selfe, 64). I'm interested in exploring how digital literacies and the notion of guanxi role-play within the narratives of language/cultural immersion. In addition, I'm convinced that I now need to include some digital literacy questions in my interviews with my "writing buddy".
No comments:
Post a Comment