Gatekeeping or Guidance:The Role of ICON

ICON is a systems-approach pedagogy where the delivery and assessment are mediated through a set of algorithmic functions— a complex database system. This provides an interesting case study in scholarship of teaching freshman composition classes. Contrary to the general practice of teacher grading their own batch of students, ICON offers a dynamic selection of grading students’ papers: an instructor receives assignments for grading of students other than one’s own batch.

In this situation it might be relevant to mention the concepts of process and product in composition teaching. I will use the notion of process to identify the teacher-student interaction in class; and, will use the idea of product to identify the teacher-student interaction through ICON.

Process: The idea of process could be understood in this respect from what M. Jimmie Killingsworth mentions in his fascinating essay “Product and Process, Literacy and Orality: An Essay on Composition and Culture.” According to him, process is a generalization in history of composition, what orality is in history of culture (Killingsworth, 1993). As such, we may equate process as a more interactive, personal, decentralized and dialogic in the Bakhtinian sense of the term. I see a role of a classroom instructor situated in the pedagogy of process, where the instructor is also a teacher. It is a personalized and active pedagogy of exchange within the classroom community. The students are encouraged free-thinking within the intellectual precincts of the moments spent inside the class.

Product: However, the face of this relationship changes immediately with the role of instructors who do not meet these students in class. The document instructors are more instructors and graders and graders than teachers. It is in this relationship that the idea of orality is inverted to the idea of “literacy.” Here the exchange of ideas is reduced to the delivery of norms as defined by the composition literacy. It in way “decontextualize[s]” ((Killingsworth, 1993) the concept of learning— from the individual and critical context (inside the class) to standard and limited context within the demands of freshman composition. ICON, thus disadvantages the facilitator role in the instructors who grade the students. Also, the amount of time-spent with a student over ICON is limited to short period of grading that particular assignment, which is hugely less than the instructors who spent an hour and twenty minutes each week with the same student. ICON perpetuates a centralized approach to grading, both in terms of following a standardized grading structure as well as in using the a common interface for suggestions.

Wriiting Center, I would say, is a process-centric approach that imbibes the basics of New Rhetoric. It is more one-on-one pedagogical approach rather than the passive “banking” approach.

To situate ICON in the whole debate of grading, error and socialization, I would say that the approach is in a way passive. It is perpetuating the idea of gatekeeper more that it is demonstrating the role of a guide/coach. ICON being technologically nuanced, echoes Bloom’s concern with revision as a function of getting better grades (by following the strict standard of formatting texts, by navigating the pages through correct clicks, and submitting the assignment within a set time to avoid penalty) rather than an exercise to polish drafts. ICON facilitates a meatball surgery so that the student is ready to submit his or her paper by the deadline of the next cycle.

Thus, ICON readjusts the socialization process of instructors (CIs & DIs): both teach, inform and communicate with students, but the nature is vastly contrastive.

Composition: A Personal View

Composition, to me, is an organic and a mutable process that subsumes the idea of process-centric job. And it is definable as far as its “process-centric” aspect is considered: drafting, editing, and revising. Perhaps then, it is possible for me to situate myself in an universal idea of composition and select the three most important concepts. However, if I consider the etymological significance of the term “composition,” I will have to reiterate the organic side of the concept. Etymologically, composing would mean “placing with,” which would then supposedly assume the contextual aspect of the term. Extending this logic, I see that composition is not planned like rhetoric (there is no “inventio” as Cicero would call it). On the other hand, there is no defining “moment” (Kairos) in composition that would standardize a uniform process of communication over a spectrum.

For me, I view composition as a discourse in progress in writing. In composing we deal with words that are semantically manipulative in terms of contexts: cultural, social, and political. Similarly, syntax and diction play a key role in influencing the act of composing a (written) text. Again, the notion of universal composition could be challenged on the ground that it is no longer the same (in syntax, diction and semantics) when treated in conjunction with graphics. For instance, the “Manga,” the Japanese graphic novel, incorporates range of subject matters, including literature and historical drama as part of its discourse. So the composition for piece of historical drama would receive different varied interpretations based on the genre in which the composition is made.

In closing, I would like to respond to the question of three important concepts by using my understanding of term as organic. I believe that “growth” (as an evolving nature of the act of composing); “process” (distinct from the recursive aspect, but more as a tool of inquiry into a context/subject matter); and “tone” (as creating a unique content in writing through an informed act of selecting and ordering diction and information).

The Man with the Movie Camera

Watching the movie, The Man with the Movie Camera, was interesting from various angles. It was a movie that interacted at different levels and in different tiers. While watching it, I was reminded of the Burkeian Parlor. For most part the narration of The Man with the Movie Camera was linear, rendering it multiple entry points for the viewing audience. The effect of the Parlor could be evidenced from the multi-layered function such as a contrast between social classes (class struggle) by using Eisenstein technique of €˜dialectical montage,' that reflects the human society as a struggle between the classes; the beginning, the middle, and the end of a daily life cycle or life at a larger context (through the cross cuts of the lady giving birth, the quotidian occurrences, and the funeral procession); the synchronized pattern of action and sound; action and inaction.At all these levels we are simple engaging ourselves in the use of the terministic screens, where the shots/screens are directing the attention to one field rather than another€. And again, €œWithin that field there can be different screens, each with its ways of directing the attention and shaping the range of observations implicit in the given terminology.€It is in this range of observations that Vertov achieves the universal narrative of the genre of cinema. He uses the camera as the main protagonist along side the human as a walk-on player in the movie. As such, he uses the camera movements like panning, close-up, long shots, cross-cuts, eye-level, high angle, aerial view extensively to define outlines of the characters, which are both anthropomorphic as well as mechanomorphic. Vertov uses the technique of reflexivity by showing the image of eye on the camera lens, as tough to critique its own perceptions. The ubiquitous camera also transfers the sense of Foucaudian gaze to its audience€” the sense of perpetual observation.The Man with the Movie Camera is very thought-provoking, especially in face of our discussion about New Media and its idea freedom.

Reality Alibis

Buadrillard spews volcano of theories at us which erupt from disparate intellectual craters—Classical Marxism, Frankfurt School, Semeiology, Anthropology, Neo-Marxism? so on and so forth. But all his theories boil down to one main idea: is reality still with us, or are we immersed in fantasia of signs.He answers this doubt himself by foregrounding his abstruse theory of “simulacra.” Baudrillard theorizes that the society is not just buying into signs, but at the same time is busy controlling this code of signification. He upholds a new form class differentiation. The elite are not separated from the mass by purchasing power alone, but by their sole and privileged access to signs. I think this angle of class differentiation can be a useful tool of studying the modern cyber culture. We may here equate sign of power with information in its totality—accumulation, transfer, and distribution. The more information we enjoy or have the better situated we are, or so we think. As a result the modern distinction of power lies with the manipulation of information alone. But as we deal with this question of power and information does it matter what medium is at our disposal? Can we conform that “medium is indeed the message?” Is the World Wide Web exacerbating the social divide or is it the “final solution?”Baudrillard’s claims may sometimes look idiosyncratic, but putting them in a certain historical perspective might force us to rethink our notion of power, class, and above all information. As a privileged community who has considerable access to information, does it entail some degree of responsibility on our part?