792E Computers & Composition Pedagogy
Dr. Albert Rouzie
October 22, 2008
Albert Rouzie’s At Play in the Fields of Writing: A Serio-Ludic Rhetoric makes a valuable contribution to English studies and language arts. It provides an important resource for faculty interested in connections between writing process pedagogy, rhetorical theory, computer-mediated communication (CMC), new media technologies, and multimodal literacies.
I say this not only because I am a student in Dr. Rouzie’s graduate Computers & Composition Pedagogy course at the same time that I am reading his book and composing this review. Or because my partner, David, a professor of English for 20+ years, has read and praised it. Or because I agree with Dr. Rouzie’s claim that opportunities to play in English studies open spaces for fruitful, curative (re)vision of relationships between rhetoric and poetic, work and play, verbal and visual, self and others. Or because I believe that connections “between texts and the dramatic effects of visual and aural media” (128) deserve attention. I say this because the book cleverly demonstrates the subversive, “serio-ludic” quality it espouses.
Texts that are composed in a playful manner are a particular kind of rhetoric that assume a playful reader. Certain kinds of resistant texts can be playful, yet make serious points. I have called texts/rhetoric that combine playfulness and seriousness, "serio-ludic." Students can be asked to compose playful texts that also are effective rhetorically.
But those texts will not much resemble conventional texts.
As I understand it from Albert’s book, serio-ludic rhetoric is writing activity that taps into the play impulse yet accomplishes “serious” writing—or “work.” The book shows this happening mostly in computer writing environments, especially in the use of hypertext tends to open the writer up to playful tendencies that he/she wouldn’t try in a traditional writing format. I think if you can get students to tap into that playfulness, you can get them to engage more completely and sincerely in a writing task. If engagement is sincere, then by definition they will learn. It occurs to me as I write the play element can make the writing authentic. If the writing task that they engage in is also “relevant,” if it accomplishes “work” that needs to be done for a class or for an assignment, then both teacher and student see that activity as useful. It seems that it is at this point—when the teacher and student recognize that progress has been made—when the serio is attached to the ludic.
Serio-ludic rhetoric encourages teaching and learning with new media in effort to bridge “the work/play gap” (Rouzie 22) and (re)vise ways we produce and perceive writing. To that end, it draws on Myka Vielstimmig’s “New Essay,” “Petals on a Wet Black Bough. The book title’s play with words is serio-ludic: it combines serious intentions with playful composing. In it we find the invention of a new word describing a new rhetorical theory and an allusion to field games that doubles as a metaphor for diverse areas of English studies involving writing. Conversely, “fields of writing” may also allude to field work. And that’s part of its appeal: it probably means both.
At Play in the Fields of Writing explores the following questions:
What does playful discourse and composition accomplish?
What is good, interesting, and productive about it?
Why should composition instructors be interested in play and what should they do with it?
How can instructors prepare for play?
What kinds of playful discourse are most valuable and why?
How does play figure in emergent forms of literacy?
What is the relationship between play and the composing process? (Rouzie 21-22)
Part of a New Dimensions in Computers and Composition series edited by Gail Hawisher and Cynthia Selfe, At Play in the Fields of Writing features a green and red spiraly swirling cover design that bleeds bottom and left into the spine and out of which white font announces its title, author, editors. In this way it resembles many scholarly books in English studies. Its solid theoretical groundings are social constructivist; its arguments rest upon relationships between individuals and their work, individuals and groups in learning communities, and how work (and play) are categorized, defined, and valued in western culture. Chapters begin with epigraphs and contain subtitles that transition between sections. The text’s linear form is disrupted by plentiful notes, signaled by superscript numbers within chapters that correspond to information at the end of each chapter. These superscripts act like hyperlinks, inviting readers to leave the place they appear, jump ahead to read additional information, and then return to the text. This is not unusual.
However, At Play in the Fields of Rhetoric breaks with English studies tradition by including numerous figures: images accompany most chapters, adding visual depth to verbal scope. Figures range from verbal excerpts of InterChange transcripts to screen shots of student projects in HyperCard that include line art, illustrations, photographs, heads, subheads, short textual blurbs, icons, hyperlinked text (and, we are told, sound)--compositions uniting aural, visual, and verbal elements in the spirit of play.
The book also breaks tradition by privileging a dialectic that values play as part of, rather than separated from, work, especially the work of writing, as it undergoes a rapid technological (r)evolution. The result, as I hope my chapter summaries below show, is fun academic reading, especially for those who enjoy disrupting traditional mores. It is full of examples and practical ideas for creating occasions conducive to “serio-ludic” classroom discourse with a variety of emergent technologies. How might these work?
Well, chat seems to make students approach discussion with a little more playfulness. I have tried using chat in Blackboard for discussion only a couple of times so far. It seems to lead to playful banter and laughter—especially if I participate in a playful way. But I haven’t yet had a sense that students have emerged from a chat having made visible progress with a concept or assignment. (I’m planning a chat for today, so maybe I’ll see such progress.)
Today has passed. I had two classes discuss a basic comp concept, in a brief chat. One class was silent as they typed; the other class’ session was punctuated with giggles. While one class (and they are the “better” class) was outwardly more playful, in both classes students broke discussion protocol, but they came back to the topic:
Today has passed. I had two classes discuss a basic comp concept, in a brief chat. One class was silent as they typed; the other class’ session was punctuated with giggles. While one class (and they are the “better” class) was outwardly more playful, in both classes students broke discussion protocol, but they came back to the topic:
Benjamin Boaz Iv: she understands what she is writing about and puts in words Oct 21, 2008 12:38:09 PM EDT
Aaron Robinson: anybody home? Oct 21, 2008 12:39:05 PM EDT
Coleman Tramill: nope at school Oct 21, 2008 12:39:16 PM EDT
Aaron Robinson: did anyone see my post? Oct 21, 2008 12:39:18 PM EDT
Victoria Jenkins: way to break the ice squirt Oct 21, 2008 12:39:20 PM EDT
Jordan Patsalides: nope Oct 21, 2008 12:39:23 PM EDT
Aaron Robinson: i'm confused because he states fragility Oct 21, 2008 12:39:27 PM EDT
And both classes moved in the course of 10 minutes to an understanding close to what I was hoping for.
Chapter 1, “Play, Pleasure, and Writing Instruction,” conceptualizes serio-ludic discourse, discusses its performative nature, and suggests its unifying potential for English and composition studies. This chapter also outlines the book’s remaining chapters and discusses two student projects, “How Do Women Get represented? Through Words and Body Parts” and “The Sants Home Page” as examples of serio-ludic discourse that “(dis)orient the reader to a different reading experience” (Rouzie 159). Serio-ludic discourse, characterized by its dramatic opening, metacommunicative signal, and conversion of language into symbolic action via CMC environments, often integrates the aural and the visual with the verbal. It requires audience interaction. CMC offers an ideal location for serio-ludic discourse since it provides composers with multidimensional tools that enable multilayered, new media essays to be experienced, rather than merely read.
Dr. Rouzie notes that current, prevailing academic culture resists this move from old to new ways of thinking about writing and maintains the work/play split. What is the source of this resistance? Have you experienced it?
As I try to recall other attempts to incorporate playful activities, I realize how few I have actually done, even though I have been consciously intent on using more after reading Albert’s book. I think this suggests a resistance despite my awareness of how beneficial it could be. This may reflect the reluctance in students. I remember giving a class the option to summarize a reading from The DaVinci Code in text message format. I gave them a summary of Romeo and Juliet done this way. Only one student tried; all of the others opted for a standard written summary. I think they didn’t want to risk looking silly (as the teacher may not want to risk students not taking him/her seriously), and
they have clear ideas of what should go on
in class.
they have clear ideas of what should go on
in class.
I have posted a section on my developmental ed e-community entitled “Play.” I don’t know of anyone that has looked at it. I distributed Lex Runciman’s essay “Fun” to all writing instructors more than a week ago. Only one person has mentioned it to me.
Another factor that will work against successful play in the classroom is that as soon as it becomes “assigned,” it is no longer really play. Albert makes this point, about the necessity of play remaining subversive to be energizing and effective in the work / play dialectic. So when I ask students to watch and analyze an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which I have been doing in English 101 for two years now, I intend that the assignment will emerge from a playful place. In fact, the episode itself, “Hush,” is serio-ludic. But most students approach it as just another assignment, at least outwardly. I have noticed that students who begin with the idea that the assignment is silly, usually express surprise at the depth they find writing through it. This may be the serio-ludic at work.
Chapter 2, “Healing the Work/Play Split: A Serio-Ludic Rhetoric for English Composition Studies,” theorizes the origins of western culture’s work / play bifurcation, argues that play is a powerful component of personal growth and social rejuvenation, and offers serio-ludic rhetoric as a bridge between the work/play gap, embodied in English studies by the rhetoric/poetic split. This chapter considers computer-based and non-computer-based environments that are conducive to play and asserts that serio-ludic literacy can emerge in either. It argues that some forms of play, such as thoughtfully designed video games, cultivate critical thinking skills and facilitate social awareness in a pleasurable learning context. Well-designed video games embody a kind of ready-made serio-ludic learning tool that deserves educators’ attention.
It seems that communication based in the visual is devalued. So it's no wonder that students respond to a visual assignment as a form of play--not only in the way that it presents "freedom/possibilities" but in the way that "anything goes."
Our culture (and therefore, students) tends to divorce work
and play, so that play is seen as "anything goes." In reality, play
is rarely anything goes or free play. Children's play is very fluid,
shifting from moment to moment. The rules may change suddenly but
that does not mean there are none. There usually are. Games are a
form of play, very rule-bound. Play can be quite open-ended but
rules and structures usually emerge as one goes along.
and play, so that play is seen as "anything goes." In reality, play
is rarely anything goes or free play. Children's play is very fluid,
shifting from moment to moment. The rules may change suddenly but
that does not mean there are none. There usually are. Games are a
form of play, very rule-bound. Play can be quite open-ended but
rules and structures usually emerge as one goes along.
The rule-bound nature of play makes me think of the polar bear and the husky: http://www.nifplay.org/polar-husky.html
I think the language of reading (active) vs. viewing (passive) implies the binary often associated with masculine/feminine, and corresponds to the work/play split. Bizarrely, playing video games is regarded as mindless, if not passive. Like a lot of things when working with students with ingrained habits, it seems you have to “trick” them into doing something different. Playful activities and assignments have that potential. If an activity that seems to have no point, or at least no serious educational point, as they see it, turns out to help students move their assignments forward, they may open themselves up to other ways of thinking creatively.
Chapter 3, “Conversation and Carrying-on: Play, Conflict, and Serio-Ludic Discourse in Synchronous Computer Conferencing,” investigates selected segments of serio-ludic discourse in Deadalus InterChange transcripts. It encourages instructors to engage students in regular synchronous conferencing and follow-up analysis of transcripts, paying special attention to conflict, intersections of gender and communication, power negotiations, and playfulness. This chapter proposes that collaborating in synchronous environments creates productive spaces for play in work. In addition to discussing productive examples of synchronous conferencing, it discusses unproductive examples and suggests playful ways to redirect students. Dr. Rouzie calls for instructors to become critical users of technology in order to make pedagogically effective decisions regarding how and what kinds of computer technology best serve their academic programs.
Chapter 4, “Play in Hypertext Theory and Practice,” explores the dramatic and transformative qualities of play within the realm of hypertext and details Dr. Rouzie’s experiences collaboratively composing two postmodern influenced hypertext compositions, This Is Not a Texbook and Hypertext Ear. It analyzes graduate student hypertext compositions, including the mysterious “experience” of Zaum Gagdet (129). Hypertext’s associative, dramatic, interactive, polyphonic, multimodal character makes it an ideal choice for serio-ludic composing. This chapter considers hypertext theory in concert with serio-ludic theory and discusses the grammatical constructs and rhetorical consequences of HyperCard, StorySpace, and World Wide Web. Web authoring, with its complex and limitless material choices, requires a more directed and purposeful approach to serio-ludically aware composition than composing in HyperCard or StorySpace. Dr. Rouzie notes that “the challenge . . . is getting students to work both with and against the grammar of the Web” (153).
Most students are visual learners until they have been indoctrinated in the word. So they like the visual. But they don't value it and seem not to think it could be appropriate for serious work.
Who can blame them? How are adults who read comic books generally regarded? Academics who focus on televisual texts all have stories about the puzzled responses they get from colleagues. A few weeks ago we had turn off your tv week. Why don't we have a close all your books week? What would we think of the mother who told her child to put down her book and go out and
play?
Who can blame them? How are adults who read comic books generally regarded? Academics who focus on televisual texts all have stories about the puzzled responses they get from colleagues. A few weeks ago we had turn off your tv week. Why don't we have a close all your books week? What would we think of the mother who told her child to put down her book and go out and
play?
I don't think most students do well at reading image texts or think of images critically. Some years back, my first year comp class was analyzing
some ads. One was a tourism ad for Jamaica that showed a
beach, white people being served tropical drinks by
attractive black people. Some students got to the
point to where they could read this ideologically
through race, class, a bit of colonialism, US
consumerist tourism etc., but some just
would not buy it.
Nothing wrong with it at all.
Horses, water etc.
some ads. One was a tourism ad for Jamaica that showed a
beach, white people being served tropical drinks by
attractive black people. Some students got to the
point to where they could read this ideologically
through race, class, a bit of colonialism, US
consumerist tourism etc., but some just
would not buy it.
Nothing wrong with it at all.
Horses, water etc.
Chapter 5, “The Composition of Dramatic Experience: The Play Element in Student Electronic Projects,” analyzes selected serio-ludic, HyperCard, MOO, and Web hypertext student compositions from eight sections of the computers and writing course. Goals for the assignment were to increase students’ awareness of computer technology’s “cultural and social effects,” to apply rhetorical strategies and create “effective written composition,” to gain experience with collaborative composing and hypertext software (Rouzie 162). Play figures prominently in the creation of these projects and constitutes an important rhetorical element. Hypertext composition requires authors to consider “the reader’s role in experiencing the document” (Rouzie 160). Emphasis on the need for an experiential way of composing and “reading” these compositions appears in this chapter, recalling Wysocki’s call for a spirit of generous reading. The idea of how composer/ audience interactivity changes composing process and product is discussed. This chapter claims that performative hypertext enacts Burke’s dramatistic theory. Student projects discussed include “The Land of Animation,” “The New Bit,” “Anatomy of a Flame War,” “The Next Step in Education,” and “The Village Square.”
I wonder what the limits of learning in visual
rhetoric are if limited to reading. Wysocki and others
are suggesting that doing it, producing visual rhetoric, is essential
to becoming a better reader, but also a composer with a sense of the available materials.
rhetoric are if limited to reading. Wysocki and others
are suggesting that doing it, producing visual rhetoric, is essential
to becoming a better reader, but also a composer with a sense of the available materials.
Chapter 6, “Conclusion: The Changing Fields of Writing,” notes that postsecondary faculty and other workplace professionals are positioned at a “critical crossroads” to decide “what values we will pursue, what choices we will make to lead us into which directions” (Rouzie 193). This chapter considers how serio-ludic rhetoric impacts English studies and departmental culture, rhetoric and composition, computers and the “fields of writing.” It offers 11 suggestions for putting serio-ludic pedagogy into practice. It stresses that time and experience are necessary for faculty to learn how to use the quickly-changing array of computer technology available to them for multi-modal composing, and that this lack of time is an obstacle to effective computers and composition pedagogy.
Dr. Rouzie observes that “College English instructors are currently so overworked that they don’t have the time needed to become comfortable with computer-based teaching, much less to explore how play can be used to enrich composition and communication” (192).
Nevertheless, he claims, they “cannot afford to ignore the visual and reject the expanded sense of writing as authoring (or composing)” that new media fosters, and in this new concept of composing, defining, and experiencing text, play interfaces most appropriately (Rouzie 195). How to evaluate these shapeshifting, serio-ludic, new media compositions without institutionalizing (and thus terminating their spontaneous impulses) presents a challenge for faculty and students negotiating playspaces in new media “fields of writing.”
All of the playful elements I have tried to incorporate have been in the service of traditional essay assignments. So for me the evaluation remains the same. The course outcomes must be met; students must be prepared for the next class—many of which probably won’t allow them to demonstrate their learning in alternative, playful texts. But encouraging the students to be playful in the process, even if the final product is not, may be something. I still hope to work in an alternative text as product—if there’s time, time, time.
Does the traditional way of looking at constructing and evaluating rhetoric and composition restrict students and faculty? Does traditional essayistic emphasis at the expense or exclusion of emergent new essay ideas and technology bog students and teachers down with irrelevant (busy)work that actually limits learning in today’s technology-rich realities outside of academe?
This evaluation point is where I offer humble critique. It would be helpful for Dr. Rouzie to have included examples of how he evaluated his students’ new media compositions, strategies for evaluating serio-ludic compositions, a rubric of some kind. As an instructor eager to learn and use new media technologies successfully in my teaching, to design pedagogically effective and challenging assignments, it is at the evaluative junction that I become most anxious. I recognize that I am struggling against outdated English department competencies that privilege traditional, essayistic writing modes. My sense is that evaluating these new media compositions would disrupt these norms, ease my grading load, and create openings for revising and updating English composition course competencies.
Another point I would make about the book is that it is clearly written for those who possess grounding in theory; some of its more densely theoretical “serio” sections require careful rereading—not that there’s anything wrong with that . . .
Hey, I got through it.
At Play in the Fields of Writing: A Serio-Ludic Rhetoric is a home run. If laughter is the best medicine, than serio-ludic rhetoric may well be the cure for what ails English studies, rhetoricians and poets. I would highly recommend this book to colleagues interested in broadening their teaching repertoire and having fun in the process. ☺
Rouzie, Albert. At Play in the Fields of Writing: A Serio-Ludi Rhetoric. Gail E. Hawisher and Cynthia L. Selfe, eds. Cresskill: Hampton Press, 2005.
Vielstimmig, Myka. “Petals on a Wet Black Bough: Textuality, Collaboration, and the New Essay.” Passions Pedagogies and 21st Century Technologies. Gail E. Hawisher and Cynthia L. Selfe, eds. Logan: Utah State UP, 1999. 89-114.
Wysocki, Anne Francis. “OPENING NEW MEDIA TO WRITING: openings & justifications.” Writing New Media: Theory and Applications for Expanding the Teaching of Composition. Wysocki, Anne Frances, Johndan Johnson-Eilola, Cynthia L. Selfe, Geoffrey Sirc. Logan: Utah State UP, 2004. 1-41.
* Troisvoix is French for three voices. Melvidal includes the electronic writing partnership of Melanie Lee, David Fritts, and Dr. Albert Rouzie. This collaborative review was inspired by Melanie’s rereading of Myka Vielstimmig’s “Petal on a Wet Black Bough: Textuality, Collaboration, and the New Essay.” Melanie wishes to thank Dr. Albert Rouzie for allowing her “serio-ludic” space and David Fritts for giving her hours of his time.
1 comment:
I endorse everything said in this review.--Rouzie
Post a Comment