Wikibook: Rhetoric and Composition
While looking through this online book I made a few notes about what I noticed in the introduction to the text…
Reasons given for online wiki format:
-Affordability for students who cannot purchase traditional textbooks
-Makes knowledge about writing available to those outside the University.
- Editing and revision to pages/ content: Just like wikipedia, users are encouraged to make changes they feel are appropriate to the content given on the various subjects related to rhet and comp
-Shows the multimedia of composition/ revision work of an online format.
-Creators seek to avoid complicated language/ jargon so that the content is accessible for all and does not turn off potential learners by language that is overly academic and therefore difficult to use/ understand
- Includes links addressing writing across the disciplines, which means the author’s are trying to make this text available to a variety of writers, not just English students
- And a teacher handbook: Appeals to teachers and gives them suggestions/ tools for how to use this with their classes.
There are several different theories being practiced in the use of this wikibook. First, it takes the implied power out of knowledge by moving it from the University to the web where everyone has access. The option to edit and revise pages also assumes a certain understanding about the power behind the author and her static text. Just like wikipedia, anyone can make changes to the content and therefore become co-authors. Again, users are encouraged to participate in making knowledge together—instead of one author whose ideas cannot be bent or revised due to the bound textbook, wikipedia extends the opportunity for users to agree and disagree with knowledge.
What struck me the most are the intentional choices regarding the implied power of specific academic jargon. Many may hesitate to enter into a discussion about academic practices, but the structure of the wikibook intentionally avoids this pitfall, which I though was especially unique. The entire format with all of these rhetorical choices seem to communicate the need for knowledge to be made available to all, not just the elite. It is difficult to remember this when I am in such close contact to the academy.
I wonder how we, as grad students unintentionally communicate power to others in the way we use language. What about our students? Should they expect their instructors to sound “smart” because they need to become accustomed to the university dialect—or does our jargon push them away from academia? Would this play a role in the high percentage of frosh dropouts at the college level? How might we find a balance in being more rhetorically aware as communicators whether it is in writing or speaking?
It seems like the intentional choices behind wikibooks situates the author and knowledge beside the learner instead of above him/ her. What are the implications of this approach? How is this changing the implied power of knowledge? Is it?
Jenny, interesting ideas in your post. I sometimes wonder about how my students perceive me, mostly because I try to avoid too much jargon and mostly try to talk to them in language they can understand. But, I do often wonder if they think I might not be smart enough to teach them anything... it's a struggle. The author of Kairos (on Kairosnews.com) said that he used a wiki in the classroom and it was a total dud. It ended up being just another ticket the students had to punch and never progressed into the rich, collaborative, community effort he intended. He mused that perhaps the students didn't really have TIME to do real work on the site, so they just couldn't get into it they way they may have. It sounds like perhaps he wasn't in a tech classroom...
ReplyDelete