Purdy, James P. “The Changing Space of Research: Web 2.0 and the Integration of Research and Writing Environments.” Computers and Composition 27 (2010): 48-58. Print.
James Purdy astutely observes that composition courses tend to “compartmentalize” writing and research, establishing them as separate entities. Of course, experienced writers know this is rarely the case and that these two work in close conjunction with one another. He claims that Web 2.0, and four technologies in particular, can help us demonstrate the interconnectedness of writing and research.
Wikipedia (“Writing publicly in the research sphere”): Purdy first explores Wikipedia. Despites its faults (which he readily admits), he states that because visitors to the site can both find information on and write about any number of given subjects it provides an excellent example for our students of research and writing as related activities.
JSTOR and del.icio.us (“Customizing the (re)search experience”): JSTOR has gone from simply a database of journals to a customizable research tool. Researchers can save settings, searches, and citations and can export what they find to citation management software (e.g., EndNote), which “frame[s] [JSTOR] as a space of activity” and “explicitly links [it] to writing venues” (52). Users of Del.icio.us can customize their research experience by creating their own tags rather than relying on categories created by others.
ARTstor and del.icio.us (“Co-locating writing and research”): ARTstor is an image database that allows its users to view and analyze (within the database and not in a separate space) images. This permits students to see, through proximity, the close relationship of writing and research. Del.icio.us “co-locates” writing and research through its customizable tags. Furthermore, del.icio.us allows access from anywhere rather than just from the computer on which the bookmarks were created. Therefore, “Research becomes less about being in a particular place (e.g., an archive or library) and more about engaging in a particular activity” (54).
Del.icio.us (“Promoting research and writing as social activities”): Not only can users customize their own bookmarks and tags here; they also can share them with other users. Students thus learn the collaborative nature of research and writing and how to use the knowledge of others to build their own knowledge. And since the tags for a given Web site can vary, students learn that others view information differently, helping them understand that research materials need to be approached critically from various perspectives.
I would recommend this article to my peers and those interested in trying out new technologies in their distance writing courses (or even in their on-site writing courses). The benefits of this article are that, first, it reminds writing instructors not to disjoint the practices of writing and research. As Purdy states, we must be conscious that the message we send is not one of compartmentalization but one of interrelation. Second, this article helps those who teach writing at a distance in particular because these instructors search for innovative and student-centered ways to simulate the collaborative work that takes place in an on-site classroom and that help students understand concepts (such as the unity of writing and research) in more tangible ways even though students might not have the benefits of face-to-face interaction with the instructor or with classmates. The technologies Purdy examines can supply some of these simulations and practical lessons about the relationship of research and writing in a distance course.
However, my recommendation comes with a few caveats. First, we must remember that any technology (Web 2.0 technologies or pen and paper) pose the same dangers of compartmentalization. The problem is not simply the technology or medium we use to teach how research and writing are interconnected; the problem is more about the message we as instructors send to students about research and writing. Unfortunately, Purdy’s article does not provide specific ways to maintain that unity using these newer technologies. Second, for distance instructors, newer technologies may be a bit of a double-edged sword, especially in lower-level courses. Student difficulties with technology are hard to trouble-shoot asynchronously and from a distance. This, too, receives minor attention from Purdy. In short, the article offers some interesting examination of a few new technologies but does not supply specific application of those technologies in either a distance or an on-site classroom environment.
2 comments:
Hi Nathan,
I enjoyed reading your blog. I understand Purdy's point about compartmentalization, but I also think, in the basic writing classes, students need to think about basic skills separately before they can put them together. There is a thin line here between compartmentalization and simply being organized. For example if I teach one of my objectives, lets say MLA documentation, it must be taught separately and prior to the research paper. In other words, I begin with teaching about MLA (in-text and the Work Cited page) and plagiarism before they jump into the research. I think that compartmentalization can be a good thing.
Always,
Nancy
You make a good point that we might be able to use compartmentalization constructively. But I think we also need to be careful that we don't let such practices dominate our pedagogy when we don't need to use them.
Post a Comment