I read and responded to Amy’s ENGL894 Locklear Case Study 2 Outline and to Jenny’s Exploring the Flow of Information in LLL via Rhetorical Situation and Genre Theory. Each took a different approach to the application of theories to object of study from each other and from the one I took in my outline, and I found that difference instructive and reflective of the continued emphasis our theorists place on difference in discursive formation.

Both Amy and Jenny took a more formal approach to the outline than I did. Their outlines included the standard numbers and letters (mediated, I noticed, by Microsoft Word’s formatting expectations and defaults, a particular pet peeve of mine), while my outline consisted of a table that (I hope) functions as an operationalized comparison and contrast rubric for the case study (mediated, I admit, by the focus on “compare and contrast” and a desire to place my theoretical conversants in a concrete framework). I also noticed that Jenny and Amy carefully examined and summarized the theories they seek to apply, while I more generally mentioned my applied theories and focused more attention on addressing the questions of the final assignment. In some ways I feel I shortchanged my outline (and I’ll regret that in the days leading up to March 23); in other ways, however, I’m working to convince myself that I directly addressed the expectations of the final assignment, important in a 3,000 word response that includes a brief literature review.

Every letter is negotiable: Creative Commons licensed image from Flickr user Mathieu Plourde

I found Amy’s presentation of nodes and activity in MOOCs very different from what I expected. As I consider MOOCs, I gravitate toward the technology that makes MOOCs possible as network nodes and activity. It’s this focus on non-human members of the network that I especially appreciate about ANT. I found Amy’s focus on the pedagogical theory and human agents as nodes an interesting and useful boundary for her discussion. Ultimately, each of us seeks a boundary within which to develop a coherent theoretical application to our object of study. Amy’s boundary differs from the boundary I would choose, but that difference tells us something about our individual network and rhetorical experiences. It also makes class-sourced collaborative models of theoretical applications to networks more valuable, in my mind, to scholarship and to pedagogical outcomes. I have a sneaking suspicion that the two instructors are of the same mind in this conclusion.

My La Leche League cake. Drawn in buttercreme: Creative Commons licensed image from Flickr user Sondra

Jenny’s focus on ordering nodes in her outline was also unexpected. Throughout this semester, probably starting with Vatz, I’ve gravitated away from applying frameworks to theories (my tabular outline an obvious contradiction, alas). I’ve willed myself to avoid imposing order on the theoretical chaos in my head. Jenny’s outline was a refreshing shift, but one important aspect I noticed was that each “ordering” of nodes was dependent on the individual theory. Instead of using a set of common criteria (like my use of the assignment questions) by which to compare and contrast theoretical stances, she developed individual criteria for comparison based on her summarized analysis of the theories themselves. Doing so likely required more effort than a standardized set of comparison criteria, but the result is that she likely has a much clearer handle on each of the theorists’ main ideas as they relate to her object of study.

In both cases, I learned from each interpretation of the assignment. My “meta” moment has less to do with the theories or their application to objects of study and more to do with each of our different executions of the assignment itself. From a pedagogical standpoint, multiple interpretations of an assignment are difficult to assess in a rubric, but they better reflect many of our theorists’ perspectives on the importance of difference in discursive formation. That’s an important lesson for my own pedagogy.

References

Van Ittersum, D., & Ching, K. L. (2013). Composing text / Shaping process: How digital environments mediate writing activity [Webtext]. Computers and Composition: An International Journal. Retrieved from http://www2.bgsu.edu/departments/english/cconline/composing_text/webtext/chat.html

Lock, A. (2014, March 3). ENGL894 Locklear case study 2 outline [Google doc, outline].

Moore, J. (2014, March 2). Exploring the flow of information in LLL via rhetorical situation and genre theory [Google doc, outline].

[Top Image: Mediated by Microsoft Word. Creative Commons licensed image from Flickr user Erik Eckel]