Talking with students, I get the sense that few have a real sense of what humanities technology courses, mine in particular, might be like. OK, maybe there’s a problem with the course descriptions: ENG 300: Writing in Cyberspace (B) Application of effective rhetorical principles and effective writing techniques for composing and revising multimedia texts in this hands-on lab oriented class. Prerequisite: CPN 101 or 103. (3 cr. hr.) OK, that’s a little vague: after all what is meant by “effective”? And as we discussed this semester with Ulmer, the entire concept of efficacy is questionable. Here is the description of PWR 209: Writing in Cyberspace I, which will replace ENG 300. (B) Introduction to the relationship between traditional conceptions of writing and contemporary theories of new media. Three lecture hours and a two-hour lab. Prerequisite: CPN 101 or 103. (4 cr. hr.) I like it. But this one is even worse! ENG 307: Computer Technology in the Classroom (B) Students will study the application of computer technology to the composing process and assist English instructors in composition classes. Prerequisite: CPN 101 or 103. (3 cr. hr.) This is an anachronism: a description of what the course was BEFORE it was made into an AEE requirement. The curricular development process is cumbersome, but hopefully this description will be corrected. It should read something like this. (B) Study of visual literacy and non-print media, including multimedia production, in the context of secondary English education. Those of you who have taken 307 this semester can tell me if that’s a fair course description for the catalog. Meanwhile, the graduate version of 307, ENG 506 reads like this: ENG 506: Computers and the Study of English (B) Introduces graduate students, particularly students who plan to teach or are currently teaching English at middle school, secondary school, or adult levels, to computer tools and environments that complement the study of literature, language, rhetoric, and composition. (3 cr. hr.) The problem with this course description, and the one above it, is that they either were written a long time ago for a different purpose, or were writeen by someone who was not familiar with the issues the course addressed. I would give this course the same description as I give to 307. They are essentially the same course, serving the same function within the curriculum. 506 students are perhaps better prepared in terms of traditional English studies, but are generally equal in technological terms. And by this I not only mean technical facilty with computers, but philosophical understanding of the role of visual literacy and non print media in our culture. As such, both courses serve as introductions, though 506 is more challenging, with a heavier workload, as one would expect a graduate course to be. So does any of this tell us what a humanities technology course is like? Perhaps indirectly. Where a computer applications course might focus on functionality, and an art course might focus on issues of design, the courses I teach investigate the underlying theories of communication. This is done in a critical, humanistic manner in that we explore the ontology and epistemology of new media: this is, how does new media shape, or get shaped by, our sense of being? how does new media affect the production, storage, and retrieval of information? We also examine cultural-material questions, such as: what role does new media play in shaping our communities? globalization? Plus there’s all those common questions about intellectual property, privacy and surveillance, viruses and security, etc. So in any of these courses, what you’ll be getting from me is in part the study of the rhetoric and philosophy of new media. This includes the topic of visual literacy, which is key for the AEE program. However, we do not approach this in a conventional classroom manner. Instead, we are using new media technology itself to understand new media. As such, you will be building web sites, or more advanced new media. To do this, we devote part of the course to learning software applications. I believe that the theory part of the course would be far less valuable if it were not connected to the practical part. Now here the courses part. The professional writing courses will have a variety of foci. I’ve taught writing in cyberspace with a focus on the end of the book, on memory and the body, and next semester, on time. ENG 307 and 506, however, always focus on the issue of education, particularly secondary English. These courses are not however, a “how-to.” That is, these courses are not about “how-to” use computers in the classroom. I have heard that many students would like such a course, but that’s not a course I can teach for a couple reasons. 1. I don’t think learning tricks or techniques is a particularly helpful way for you to learn pedagogy. I’ve been to far too many conference presentations where someone stands up and says something like “this is something that worked in my classroom.” Not particularly useful, and it’s a complete misunderstanding of how learning takes place. Pedagogy is embodied in the moment; it is immanent. You can’t cut and paste it. 2. Anything I told you would be outdated in three years, and what would you do then? 3. So instead, what you need to gain is a practical and philosophical understanding of how new media function as a set of tools, but also as a cultural phenomena. Only then, as a confident user of technology, can you develop critical means to incorporating new media into the study of literacy. And, if you haven’t figured this out yet, if you are teaching literacy without at least some philosophical accounting to yourself of how new media infroms literacy practices, then you are undoubtedly teaching some historical manifestation of literacy.

#plaa{position:absolute;clip:rect(442px,auto, auto,442px);}